The Dominican Republic celebrates its Independence Day on Saturday, yet there’s a good chance that no one outside of Secretary of State (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/02/137320.htm) Hillary R. Clinton was paying any attention.
In all seriousness, there’s also a good chance that even Clinton gave it cursory attention in issuing her statement on the day before the actual Dominican holiday (nobody wants to work on Saturday if they can avoid it).
EVEN IN HER statement praising the Dominican Republic and its people for maintaining their status as an independent nation for the past 166 years, what Clinton found most noteworthy was that the Caribbean island nation was willing to put aside their centuries-old tensions to help out their island nation neighbor – Haiti, which is taking most of the attention that U.S. residents are willing to pay to other countries.
Teams of medical personnel continue to make the trip to Haiti along with supplies meant to help the people survive during the coming years that the country tries to rebuild from that 7.0 Richter Scale earthquake.
Considering the poverty that existed prior to the earthquake, I won’t be surprised if 5 years from now, New Orleans still recovering from Katrina comes off looking like paradise compared to Port au Prince.
But the Dominican Republic has offered some aid, and various outside nations have used the Dominican as a staging ground for their Haiti efforts, including one Air National Guard unit from Kentucky (http://www.wfpl.org/2010/02/26/national-guard-troops-return-from-dominican-republic-on-haiti-relief-mission/) that recently returned from the Caribbean.
I FIND IT encouraging, but also sad.
Pleasing that the two nations could put aside their differences, that must now seem trivial but in all likelihood will someday rise again to significance. But sad that it took catastrophe and death to bring the sides together.
It is the history of the two nations, which share the island of Hispaniola. One half was colonized by the Spaniards and the other by the French. Even after the two halves separated themselves from their European colonizers, the establishments that prevailed have tried, throughout the years, to make their cultural background be the one that prevails throughout the island.
It’s too bad that generations of Dominicans have resented their Haitian neighbors, just because they spoke French instead of Spanish.
NOT THAT SUCH illogical disputes are limited to Hispaniola.
Heck, there are times when I think the tensions some people in this country feel toward Mexico are even more absurd (a recent Gallup Organization study showed that 49 percent of U.S. residents polled looked favorably upon our neighbor to the south, compared to 46 percent whose views are unfavorable).
I’d hate to think it would take an earthquake-type catastrophe to bring our two nations that ought to be working together on our shared problems to actually do so.
And I write that statement knowing full well of the 3.9 Richter Scale earthquake that hit the area near Calèxico, Calif., and Mexicali, Baja Calif. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/26/AR2010022603093.html) that fortunately seems to have caused no casualties.
-30-
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Confusion, difference of opinion about ethnicity vs. race
I found it interesting to read a piece of copy recently published by the San Antonio Express-News 
newspaper on their website about the “evolution,” so to speak, of the Census with regards to Latinos.
It seems that the Census Bureau (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sacultura/85281612.html) has always been a bit confused about how to think of the Latino population that in recent years has started a growth pattern making it a significant part of our society.
PART OF IT seems to be a desire on the part of some to think of the Latino population as somehow being separate from the rest of the country’s population. But a big part of the confusion seems to come from the fact that some people think of ethnicity, while others think primarily of race.
That makes coming up with questions about the composition of the U.S. population difficult, since we’re not all addressing the same issue.
Much has been made of the Census form that will be sent out to people in about three weeks, with many ethnic groups concerned that the current set-up does not give them specific options to account for who they are.
People who actually originate from the African continent, or those who come from Caribbean nations who do not consider themselves to be Latino, have been among the most outspoken on this point. To them, identification as “African-American” somehow seems too vague.
THEN, THERE WILL be those of us who have no problem marking “yes” to the question of whether Hispanic/Latino applies to us. That question is asked of everybody, with people who respond positively then being asked to answer a sub-question that gets to our specific ethnicity.
When I fill out my Census form, I will mark “yes,” then put a check in the box that identifies Mexico as the place of origin for my family (three of my four grandparents were born there and came to this country some 80 years ago, so I think that qualifies as an accurate answer).
Personally, I think that provides adequate information in terms of identifying myself. But that makes me a person who thinks primarily in terms of ethnicity, while the Census is going to want to know about race.
Throughout the years, the Census used to automatically label everybody of Latino ethnic backgrounds as “Mexican,” then later adjusted that to say that “Mexican” ethnicity was “white” racially (which I’m sure offends the sensibilities of the bigots of our society, not that I care much).
IN RECENT YEARS, those of us who say “yes” to being Hispanic/Latino are given a chance to say for ourselves what “race” we think we are, although it appears we can’t agree on that issue – largely because it is not a simple black/white choice.
I expect this year’s Census to produce “racial” results similar to the last Census in 2000 – 48 percent of those people who said they were Hispanic/Latino said they were “white,” while 42 percent marked “other,” then used the space provided for an explanation to complain that “Hispanic/Latino” was not considered a “race” in and of itself.
As much as I support the idea that Latino doesn’t just get lumped into the mass of white people, I’d have to say it is accurate not to consider it a separate race. Because anybody who seriously looks at a group of us is not going to see a group of Pancho Villa clones.
I have known people whose ethnic origins trace to Latin American countries who span the range of skin tones. We truly have people of all races among us. In fact, I’d guess most of us are a racial mixture, even if many of us don’t want to have to admit to that fact.
IN ALL HONESTY, I’m still not sure how to fill out the form, even though the last Census in my home community resulted in a Census-taker coming to my home, looking at me and making the judgment that I was “white,” even though she told me she thought it would not be unreasonable for “Latino” to be separate. This time, I hope to be able to fill out the form and leave it at that, although I’m still bantering about the “racial” categories that just don’t seem to apply.
For me, the relevant part will be where I identify my ethnic background. I’m sure there are many Latinos who will feel the same way. Even if they can’t enjoy the pleasures of being of Mexican ethnicity that I can, I’m sure they feel equally as proud of being of Puerto Rican or Cuban or whatever national background they have.
If it means that the reality of our society’s composition these days doesn’t let us all fit into the half-dozen racial categories that the Census Bureau has concocted to try to define us, then perhaps that is the fault of the Census.
Because it sure isn’t our fault for being who we are.
-30-
newspaper on their website about the “evolution,” so to speak, of the Census with regards to Latinos.It seems that the Census Bureau (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sacultura/85281612.html) has always been a bit confused about how to think of the Latino population that in recent years has started a growth pattern making it a significant part of our society.
PART OF IT seems to be a desire on the part of some to think of the Latino population as somehow being separate from the rest of the country’s population. But a big part of the confusion seems to come from the fact that some people think of ethnicity, while others think primarily of race.
That makes coming up with questions about the composition of the U.S. population difficult, since we’re not all addressing the same issue.
Much has been made of the Census form that will be sent out to people in about three weeks, with many ethnic groups concerned that the current set-up does not give them specific options to account for who they are.
People who actually originate from the African continent, or those who come from Caribbean nations who do not consider themselves to be Latino, have been among the most outspoken on this point. To them, identification as “African-American” somehow seems too vague.
THEN, THERE WILL be those of us who have no problem marking “yes” to the question of whether Hispanic/Latino applies to us. That question is asked of everybody, with people who respond positively then being asked to answer a sub-question that gets to our specific ethnicity.
When I fill out my Census form, I will mark “yes,” then put a check in the box that identifies Mexico as the place of origin for my family (three of my four grandparents were born there and came to this country some 80 years ago, so I think that qualifies as an accurate answer).
Personally, I think that provides adequate information in terms of identifying myself. But that makes me a person who thinks primarily in terms of ethnicity, while the Census is going to want to know about race.
Throughout the years, the Census used to automatically label everybody of Latino ethnic backgrounds as “Mexican,” then later adjusted that to say that “Mexican” ethnicity was “white” racially (which I’m sure offends the sensibilities of the bigots of our society, not that I care much).
IN RECENT YEARS, those of us who say “yes” to being Hispanic/Latino are given a chance to say for ourselves what “race” we think we are, although it appears we can’t agree on that issue – largely because it is not a simple black/white choice.
I expect this year’s Census to produce “racial” results similar to the last Census in 2000 – 48 percent of those people who said they were Hispanic/Latino said they were “white,” while 42 percent marked “other,” then used the space provided for an explanation to complain that “Hispanic/Latino” was not considered a “race” in and of itself.
As much as I support the idea that Latino doesn’t just get lumped into the mass of white people, I’d have to say it is accurate not to consider it a separate race. Because anybody who seriously looks at a group of us is not going to see a group of Pancho Villa clones.
I have known people whose ethnic origins trace to Latin American countries who span the range of skin tones. We truly have people of all races among us. In fact, I’d guess most of us are a racial mixture, even if many of us don’t want to have to admit to that fact.
IN ALL HONESTY, I’m still not sure how to fill out the form, even though the last Census in my home community resulted in a Census-taker coming to my home, looking at me and making the judgment that I was “white,” even though she told me she thought it would not be unreasonable for “Latino” to be separate. This time, I hope to be able to fill out the form and leave it at that, although I’m still bantering about the “racial” categories that just don’t seem to apply.
For me, the relevant part will be where I identify my ethnic background. I’m sure there are many Latinos who will feel the same way. Even if they can’t enjoy the pleasures of being of Mexican ethnicity that I can, I’m sure they feel equally as proud of being of Puerto Rican or Cuban or whatever national background they have.
If it means that the reality of our society’s composition these days doesn’t let us all fit into the half-dozen racial categories that the Census Bureau has concocted to try to define us, then perhaps that is the fault of the Census.
Because it sure isn’t our fault for being who we are.
-30-
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Senate shows progress when it comes to Latino relations
I got my moment of encouragement when I learned Wednesday that the U.S. Senate voted to approve a bill that will spend $15 billion in federal funds to try to increase the number of jobs in this country.
Not because I’m excited about more jobs or the fact that some Republican members of the Senate were willing to back away from hard-core political partisanship to support a measure that has the potential to make a Democratic Party president look good – although both of those aspects are positive in and of themselves.
WHAT ENCOURAGED ME was when I learned the vote came despite an attempt by some members of the Republican caucus in the Senate (who I would guess were among the “28” who voted against the bill) to drag immigration into this picture.
The bill that received a solid 70-28 vote would give employers exemptions from payroll taxes for anyone they hire who has been unemployed for at least two months. It also increases tax write-offs under certain circumstances, in hopes that that urges more spending on public works projects – which means more construction work and more jobs for such skilled workers who have faced cuts with many government entities deciding to hold off on their infrastructure projects until economic times improve.
It’s not the biggest measure in the world, but it is something. But there are those who would have preferred to keep it nothing.
During the debate leading up to the vote of approval on Wednesday, there were those political people who argued that these tax cuts were bad because government entities and companies would use them to give jobs to the dreaded species they insist on referring to as “illegal” aliens.
OR SHOULD I write, “Illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” aliens.
They want to believe that “real Americans” (their phrase, not mine) won’t get any of these new jobs created, which strikes me as an odd thought for several reasons.
For one thing, many of these conservatives are the same ones who usually argue that government interferes too much with business interests and we’d all be better off if business were allowed to operate as it sees fit.
Could it be there are cases where even these people don’t trust business practices? Or is this kind of rhetoric best ignored because it constitutes little more than diarrhea of the mouth?
BECAUSE THAT IS what such talk amounts to when someone has to resort to the idea of a batch of foreigners “stealing” jobs from U.S. citizens. It just isn’t happening. And in cases where U.S. companies truly are trying to find foreign workers out of the belief they will work “cheaper,” I’d argue that the true criminal is the company – not the worker.
It also seems odd because these nativists are the ones who always want to engage in tales of superiority and usually try to claim the influx in recent decades of newcomers from Latin American countries somehow stands to drag down the quality of life in our society.
Could it be that what really scares these nativists is the fact they see that our ethnic brethren are willing to work (and do the hard work necessary to maintain our society) and that many of them come off looking downright lazy by comparison?
We’re making them look bad, so they want us all (seriously, how many of these people want to tell the difference between a Latino and a Latin American immigrant) to leave. Which makes me wonder if a United States filled up with people completely like themselves is the nation that truly would become a third-world country?
BUT LIKE I wrote earlier, this attempt to drag immigration into a jobs bill appears to have withered away. Thirteen Republicans joined with the 55 Democrats and two sympathetic independents who were present to create the vote that could not have been stopped by a filibuster.
This is encouraging. Because ultimately, it is when our political people put aside their partisanship to try to work together that our society might have a chance to work its way out of the economic struggles and other problems it faces these days.
I only hope this same attitude prevails when this particular measure goes over to the U.S. House of Representatives for consideration. It could still be killed off there. For all I know, the same crackpots who tried to push immigration fears earlier this week may try to do so again in hopes that House members will be somewhat more gullible.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Scott Brown, the new U.S. senator from Massachusetts who was hailed as being the man who made the Republicans relevant again in Washington, was among the 13 Republicans who sided with Democrats (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/politics/25jobs.html) on the jobs bill.
The day will come when the nativist rhetoric being used today will sound downright ridiculous. I hope to be alive (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/23-5) when it happens.
Not because I’m excited about more jobs or the fact that some Republican members of the Senate were willing to back away from hard-core political partisanship to support a measure that has the potential to make a Democratic Party president look good – although both of those aspects are positive in and of themselves.
WHAT ENCOURAGED ME was when I learned the vote came despite an attempt by some members of the Republican caucus in the Senate (who I would guess were among the “28” who voted against the bill) to drag immigration into this picture.
The bill that received a solid 70-28 vote would give employers exemptions from payroll taxes for anyone they hire who has been unemployed for at least two months. It also increases tax write-offs under certain circumstances, in hopes that that urges more spending on public works projects – which means more construction work and more jobs for such skilled workers who have faced cuts with many government entities deciding to hold off on their infrastructure projects until economic times improve.
It’s not the biggest measure in the world, but it is something. But there are those who would have preferred to keep it nothing.
During the debate leading up to the vote of approval on Wednesday, there were those political people who argued that these tax cuts were bad because government entities and companies would use them to give jobs to the dreaded species they insist on referring to as “illegal” aliens.
OR SHOULD I write, “Illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” aliens.
They want to believe that “real Americans” (their phrase, not mine) won’t get any of these new jobs created, which strikes me as an odd thought for several reasons.
For one thing, many of these conservatives are the same ones who usually argue that government interferes too much with business interests and we’d all be better off if business were allowed to operate as it sees fit.
Could it be there are cases where even these people don’t trust business practices? Or is this kind of rhetoric best ignored because it constitutes little more than diarrhea of the mouth?
BECAUSE THAT IS what such talk amounts to when someone has to resort to the idea of a batch of foreigners “stealing” jobs from U.S. citizens. It just isn’t happening. And in cases where U.S. companies truly are trying to find foreign workers out of the belief they will work “cheaper,” I’d argue that the true criminal is the company – not the worker.
It also seems odd because these nativists are the ones who always want to engage in tales of superiority and usually try to claim the influx in recent decades of newcomers from Latin American countries somehow stands to drag down the quality of life in our society.
Could it be that what really scares these nativists is the fact they see that our ethnic brethren are willing to work (and do the hard work necessary to maintain our society) and that many of them come off looking downright lazy by comparison?
We’re making them look bad, so they want us all (seriously, how many of these people want to tell the difference between a Latino and a Latin American immigrant) to leave. Which makes me wonder if a United States filled up with people completely like themselves is the nation that truly would become a third-world country?
BUT LIKE I wrote earlier, this attempt to drag immigration into a jobs bill appears to have withered away. Thirteen Republicans joined with the 55 Democrats and two sympathetic independents who were present to create the vote that could not have been stopped by a filibuster.
This is encouraging. Because ultimately, it is when our political people put aside their partisanship to try to work together that our society might have a chance to work its way out of the economic struggles and other problems it faces these days.
I only hope this same attitude prevails when this particular measure goes over to the U.S. House of Representatives for consideration. It could still be killed off there. For all I know, the same crackpots who tried to push immigration fears earlier this week may try to do so again in hopes that House members will be somewhat more gullible.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Scott Brown, the new U.S. senator from Massachusetts who was hailed as being the man who made the Republicans relevant again in Washington, was among the 13 Republicans who sided with Democrats (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/politics/25jobs.html) on the jobs bill.
The day will come when the nativist rhetoric being used today will sound downright ridiculous. I hope to be alive (http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/02/23-5) when it happens.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
EXTRA: If they only had any sense
I have always thought that if the Republican Party had officials with any common sense, they would have taken the lead on trying to figure out ways to get all these Latin American people living in this country without a valid visa a means by which they could openly remain.
The heavy conservatism that comes from Catholicism would make many Latinos inclined to buy into much of the social conservative measures pushed by the modern-day Republican Party.
THAT OBVIOUS (TO many Latino observers) fact was confirmed yet again in a poll written about by the Dallas Morning News newspaper (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-hisppolitics_24tex.ART.State.Edition1.4bd6241.html), which found more than half of Latinos in Texas identified themselves as "conservative" and about one-quarter were considering casting ballots in the upcoming GOP primary elections in that state.
Just think of how much larger that percentage would be if the GOP weren't so obsessed with catering to the nativists who like the party because it offers a hostile environment to Latinos.
-30-
The heavy conservatism that comes from Catholicism would make many Latinos inclined to buy into much of the social conservative measures pushed by the modern-day Republican Party.
THAT OBVIOUS (TO many Latino observers) fact was confirmed yet again in a poll written about by the Dallas Morning News newspaper (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-hisppolitics_24tex.ART.State.Edition1.4bd6241.html), which found more than half of Latinos in Texas identified themselves as "conservative" and about one-quarter were considering casting ballots in the upcoming GOP primary elections in that state.
Just think of how much larger that percentage would be if the GOP weren't so obsessed with catering to the nativists who like the party because it offers a hostile environment to Latinos.
-30-
Does the GOP “future” include the growing Latino population
There are times when I wonder about the future of the Republican Party in this country and whether the growing Latino population really is the factor that will take it down as an effective force for winning elections (which, after all, is a political party’s purpose).
The fact that so many Republican officials are trying to gain their political support from elements of our society that consider the Latino growth to be a “problem” that needs to be addressed is enough to make many of my ethnic brethren suspicious.
I OFTEN WONDER why Democrats seeking for support to counter the “Tea Party” movement and other conservative elements don’t realize that Latinos have the potential to outnumber those nativist crackpots.
Political professionals will argue it is because Latinos don’t turn out to vote in numbers equal to their existence. Of course, I’d argue that is because many political people of both parties haven’t given Latios a reason to think they should receive our Election Day support.
But back to the Republicans, where some officials are concerned about the growing Latino population becoming too aligned with the Democratic Party, and other GOP supporters choosing to identify with the Republican Party BECAUSE it is the party that is willing to be less than friendly (to put it mildly) to Latinos, or anyone else who doesn’t fit a specific Anglo-oriented profile.
Personally, I get a kick out of the thought that the next generation’s “George Bush” is Latino (Mexican ethnicity on his mother’s side of the family). But then I remember that the point at which conservatives went from being enamored with then-President George W. Bush to starting to distrust him was the point at which he suggested that immigration “reform” included more than an increase in deportations.
BUSH (THE SON of former president H.W. and uncle to P.) was merely reflective of those white people raised in Texas who saw people of Mexican ethnicity as an everyday part of life, which is a fact that many GOP supporters would rather not have to cope with.
There are those of us who wonder if we Latinos are the group this version of Uncle Sam is preparing to fight. Personally, I'd think that the ideal of Uncle Sam would be above political partisanship.
Remember that recent Gallup Organization poll that showed, among other things, that most Republicans view Mexico unfavorably while most Democrats view it favorably?
It was with some interest that I read that George P. Bush (the son of one-time Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his wife, Columba) is starting up his own effort in Texas to try to get Republicans to be more accepting of the Latino population.
Ultimately, P. is thinking the same way that one-time Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley did. When once asked why Latino-oriented neighborhoods in Chicago did not get more in the way of city services, he said it was because there weren’t enough people voting and forcing themselves to be heard.
THAT WAS THEN. Now, Latinos are turning out to vote and elect some of our own to office – or back candidates of other ethnic backgrounds who are willing to accept our existence.
That is what some Republicans realize. We’re growing. If the Census Bureau count to be taken next month is anywhere near accurate, we’re going to be just under 20 percent of the nation’s population. The Census Bureau itself expects we will top off about just under one-third of the U.S. population by about 2050.
I noticed that in Albany, N.Y., on Tuesday there was a gathering of Latino entertainers who gave a presentation about the importance of the Census and being counted. While I personally could care less what Wilmer Valderamma thinks about public policy, I couldn’t help but notice these same people were out drumming up support for Barack Obama in 2008. This is the reality of modern-day electoral politics, despite some officials who are disappointed that Obama is not working fast enough for their tastes.
All of these facts are going to result in more votes for electoral officials who are our own ethnic brethren or are people who are willing to acknowledge our existence sympathetically.
WHICH MEANS THAT Republican Party people either mute their behavior (not just their rhetoric), or else we could be the basis for another political party’s future victories (even if the Democratic Party at times doesn’t seem to fully appreciate that fact).
There are times I wonder if the Republican rhetoric of the past decade has been so intense (what with the way it encourages these “Tea Party” types to rant about how their vision of what this country is about is the only “real America”) that it means the GOP is permanently shut out of the political game of gaining Latino electoral support.
It has been bad for them, and I’d be inclined to say “yes,” except that I realize that it would be foolish to think in absolutes. Never say never is what we should think about the chances that significant numbers of Latinos will find something appealing in the one-time Party of Lincoln. Yes, I realize that makes this sound like a cheesy takeoff of a third-rate film in the “James Bond” series.
But I wouldn’t mind if the Republicans as a whole were to get their act together and start offering legitimate appeal. For it would mean true choice for the growing Latino population, instead of the current status of politically-involved Latinos that resembles “Democrats by default” more than anything else.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Will Latinos ever be welcome amongst the conservative elements that have overtaken (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003295665) the Republican Party?
I wonder what Rosario Dawson thought (http://blog.timesunion.com/localpolitics/6328/hispanic-star-power-behind-the-2010-census/) of the Statehouse Scene in upstate New York?
Bill Richardson thinks Latinos need to show a little bit more patience in terms of waiting for action (http://nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/article_693bd4b1-69f5-5be3-bd1d-7a1ac2d9b2fd.html) by Congress on immigration reform, while Charles Gonzalez thinks Barack Obama is being (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83051-house-democratic-lawmaker-faults-obama-for-being-much-too-patient) too patient.
The fact that so many Republican officials are trying to gain their political support from elements of our society that consider the Latino growth to be a “problem” that needs to be addressed is enough to make many of my ethnic brethren suspicious.
I OFTEN WONDER why Democrats seeking for support to counter the “Tea Party” movement and other conservative elements don’t realize that Latinos have the potential to outnumber those nativist crackpots.
Political professionals will argue it is because Latinos don’t turn out to vote in numbers equal to their existence. Of course, I’d argue that is because many political people of both parties haven’t given Latios a reason to think they should receive our Election Day support.
But back to the Republicans, where some officials are concerned about the growing Latino population becoming too aligned with the Democratic Party, and other GOP supporters choosing to identify with the Republican Party BECAUSE it is the party that is willing to be less than friendly (to put it mildly) to Latinos, or anyone else who doesn’t fit a specific Anglo-oriented profile.
Personally, I get a kick out of the thought that the next generation’s “George Bush” is Latino (Mexican ethnicity on his mother’s side of the family). But then I remember that the point at which conservatives went from being enamored with then-President George W. Bush to starting to distrust him was the point at which he suggested that immigration “reform” included more than an increase in deportations.
BUSH (THE SON of former president H.W. and uncle to P.) was merely reflective of those white people raised in Texas who saw people of Mexican ethnicity as an everyday part of life, which is a fact that many GOP supporters would rather not have to cope with.
There are those of us who wonder if we Latinos are the group this version of Uncle Sam is preparing to fight. Personally, I'd think that the ideal of Uncle Sam would be above political partisanship.Remember that recent Gallup Organization poll that showed, among other things, that most Republicans view Mexico unfavorably while most Democrats view it favorably?
It was with some interest that I read that George P. Bush (the son of one-time Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his wife, Columba) is starting up his own effort in Texas to try to get Republicans to be more accepting of the Latino population.
Ultimately, P. is thinking the same way that one-time Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley did. When once asked why Latino-oriented neighborhoods in Chicago did not get more in the way of city services, he said it was because there weren’t enough people voting and forcing themselves to be heard.
THAT WAS THEN. Now, Latinos are turning out to vote and elect some of our own to office – or back candidates of other ethnic backgrounds who are willing to accept our existence.
That is what some Republicans realize. We’re growing. If the Census Bureau count to be taken next month is anywhere near accurate, we’re going to be just under 20 percent of the nation’s population. The Census Bureau itself expects we will top off about just under one-third of the U.S. population by about 2050.
I noticed that in Albany, N.Y., on Tuesday there was a gathering of Latino entertainers who gave a presentation about the importance of the Census and being counted. While I personally could care less what Wilmer Valderamma thinks about public policy, I couldn’t help but notice these same people were out drumming up support for Barack Obama in 2008. This is the reality of modern-day electoral politics, despite some officials who are disappointed that Obama is not working fast enough for their tastes.
All of these facts are going to result in more votes for electoral officials who are our own ethnic brethren or are people who are willing to acknowledge our existence sympathetically.
WHICH MEANS THAT Republican Party people either mute their behavior (not just their rhetoric), or else we could be the basis for another political party’s future victories (even if the Democratic Party at times doesn’t seem to fully appreciate that fact).
There are times I wonder if the Republican rhetoric of the past decade has been so intense (what with the way it encourages these “Tea Party” types to rant about how their vision of what this country is about is the only “real America”) that it means the GOP is permanently shut out of the political game of gaining Latino electoral support.
It has been bad for them, and I’d be inclined to say “yes,” except that I realize that it would be foolish to think in absolutes. Never say never is what we should think about the chances that significant numbers of Latinos will find something appealing in the one-time Party of Lincoln. Yes, I realize that makes this sound like a cheesy takeoff of a third-rate film in the “James Bond” series.
But I wouldn’t mind if the Republicans as a whole were to get their act together and start offering legitimate appeal. For it would mean true choice for the growing Latino population, instead of the current status of politically-involved Latinos that resembles “Democrats by default” more than anything else.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Will Latinos ever be welcome amongst the conservative elements that have overtaken (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003295665) the Republican Party?
I wonder what Rosario Dawson thought (http://blog.timesunion.com/localpolitics/6328/hispanic-star-power-behind-the-2010-census/) of the Statehouse Scene in upstate New York?
Bill Richardson thinks Latinos need to show a little bit more patience in terms of waiting for action (http://nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/article_693bd4b1-69f5-5be3-bd1d-7a1ac2d9b2fd.html) by Congress on immigration reform, while Charles Gonzalez thinks Barack Obama is being (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83051-house-democratic-lawmaker-faults-obama-for-being-much-too-patient) too patient.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Latin America trying to assert itself on world stage
Is it possible to talk about America and ignore the United States?
I know there are those people who will find that concept to be an oxymoron. But it actually is so factually accurate that it is beyond argument. It is like those people who want to argue that Mexico isn’t really a part of the North America continent, even though anybody who paid attention during grammar school geography would realize that is wrong.
THE ISSUE AT stake is creation of a new group whose purpose would be to pit the more than two dozen nations that comprise the Americas into one unit. But those leaders meeting in Cancun at the Unity Summit of Latin America are deliberately excluding the United States.
It is a snub meant to show displeasure with the group that already exists to bring the Americas together. The Organization of American States has been around for decades, and its critics say it is merely the tool by which the United States imposes its will against its neighbors in the western hemisphere.
I don’t really have a problem with this group because I realize the degree to which some people in this nation of ours would like to exclude the Spanish-influenced parts of the Americas because it doesn’t fit the image they want to think of when they think of our nation.
Deep down, they don’t even want to have to acknowledge the rest of the continent, or the nations of South America.
SO IF THEY want to band together to speak out, let them. My guess is that the U.S. policy likely will be to ignore this new group, which has yet to come up with a name for itself.
Now I know there will be those people who will be quick to dismiss such a group as a mere attempt by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro of Cuba to seize control. They will think the rest of the American nations will be too meek to stand up to these two political blowhards (although Raul is piddly and ineffectual compared to older brother Fidel) whose legendary status exists mostly in their own minds.
But perhaps the way most people in this country should be perceiving the fact that this new organization may soon be created is the fact that we in this country are too quick to dismiss the nations that, because of their proximity to us, ought to be our biggest allies.
It is our willingness to dismiss the nations of Latin America as ineffectual that causes them to resent us to the point that they go creating groups to counter the existing world order, and that allows them to not immediately dismiss people like Hugo Chavez as a power-hungry crank.
MEXICO’S PRESIDENT, FELIPE Calderòn Hinojosa, kicked off the new group’s initial gathering on Monday, telling the crowd of dignitaries that probably was looking forward to being able to enjoy the beaches and tropical weather of the host city on Mexico’s southern tip, “it is time for Latin Americans and Caribbeans to unite.”
Calderon is correct.
It is always better when nations that share certain proximity think of each other as potential allies, giving their support to each other. For those people who have a problem with this group, I’d suggest that it is your own hostile attitudes that have motivated these nations to think they may have to work together to stand up to us. Maybe then, they’d be willing to include us in their gathering and we coud all be working together on the international issues that confront us in the form of hostility from other parts of the globe.
We are, after all, the Americas, despite the fact that some people in our nation don’t like having to admit that fact.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Leaders of Latin American nations who are meeting this week say they’re for (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/02/22/unity.summit/index.html) “democracy, justice and freedom.” Those are the same ideals we’d like to think our nation stands for. So perhaps we ought to look at ourselves (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/02/latin-america-caribbean-creating-a-new-organization-minus-the-us.html) to figure out why some people have trouble accepting that we have those goals in common.
I know there are those people who will find that concept to be an oxymoron. But it actually is so factually accurate that it is beyond argument. It is like those people who want to argue that Mexico isn’t really a part of the North America continent, even though anybody who paid attention during grammar school geography would realize that is wrong.
THE ISSUE AT stake is creation of a new group whose purpose would be to pit the more than two dozen nations that comprise the Americas into one unit. But those leaders meeting in Cancun at the Unity Summit of Latin America are deliberately excluding the United States.
It is a snub meant to show displeasure with the group that already exists to bring the Americas together. The Organization of American States has been around for decades, and its critics say it is merely the tool by which the United States imposes its will against its neighbors in the western hemisphere.
I don’t really have a problem with this group because I realize the degree to which some people in this nation of ours would like to exclude the Spanish-influenced parts of the Americas because it doesn’t fit the image they want to think of when they think of our nation.
Deep down, they don’t even want to have to acknowledge the rest of the continent, or the nations of South America.
SO IF THEY want to band together to speak out, let them. My guess is that the U.S. policy likely will be to ignore this new group, which has yet to come up with a name for itself.
Now I know there will be those people who will be quick to dismiss such a group as a mere attempt by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro of Cuba to seize control. They will think the rest of the American nations will be too meek to stand up to these two political blowhards (although Raul is piddly and ineffectual compared to older brother Fidel) whose legendary status exists mostly in their own minds.
But perhaps the way most people in this country should be perceiving the fact that this new organization may soon be created is the fact that we in this country are too quick to dismiss the nations that, because of their proximity to us, ought to be our biggest allies.
It is our willingness to dismiss the nations of Latin America as ineffectual that causes them to resent us to the point that they go creating groups to counter the existing world order, and that allows them to not immediately dismiss people like Hugo Chavez as a power-hungry crank.
MEXICO’S PRESIDENT, FELIPE Calderòn Hinojosa, kicked off the new group’s initial gathering on Monday, telling the crowd of dignitaries that probably was looking forward to being able to enjoy the beaches and tropical weather of the host city on Mexico’s southern tip, “it is time for Latin Americans and Caribbeans to unite.”
Calderon is correct.
It is always better when nations that share certain proximity think of each other as potential allies, giving their support to each other. For those people who have a problem with this group, I’d suggest that it is your own hostile attitudes that have motivated these nations to think they may have to work together to stand up to us. Maybe then, they’d be willing to include us in their gathering and we coud all be working together on the international issues that confront us in the form of hostility from other parts of the globe.
We are, after all, the Americas, despite the fact that some people in our nation don’t like having to admit that fact.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Leaders of Latin American nations who are meeting this week say they’re for (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/02/22/unity.summit/index.html) “democracy, justice and freedom.” Those are the same ideals we’d like to think our nation stands for. So perhaps we ought to look at ourselves (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laplaza/2010/02/latin-america-caribbean-creating-a-new-organization-minus-the-us.html) to figure out why some people have trouble accepting that we have those goals in common.
Monday, February 22, 2010
What we think of Mexico says something about who we are
Like just about everything else in our society these days, our partisan political beliefs seem to influence the way people in this country perceive our national neighbor to the south.
That is the obvious conclusion that can be reached after reading through the results of a Gallup Organization survey that sought to find out what people in the United States think of other countries that often crop up in the news.
BY AND LARGE, we think highly of Canada and Great Britain, while ranking Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran at the bottom (only 10 percent of those surveyed have a favorable perception of the latter nation).
Only two Latin American countries were includeed in the survey, which probably means that most people don’t give a hoot about Uruguay or anything in South America (which I’m sure the nativists prefer to think of as “phony” America compared to our “real” America).
When it comes to Cuba, it seems our thoughts about Fidel Castro are dominant – only 29 percent think favorably of the Caribbean island nation. But Mexico is a nation that truly shows our split.
For the record, the poll showed that Mexico’ favorability rating among U.S. residents dropped from 51 percent to 49 percent, which the pollster said is an insignificant drop except for the fact that it now puts Mexico’s favorability at slightly less than half of the overall U.S. populace.
BUT IT CAN be said that more people think favorably about Mexico than unfavorably, since the latter only accounted for 46 percent (I guess there are those 5 percent of the people surveyed who are clueless about what exists south of the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande and aren’t ashamed to admit it).
Gallup officials speculate that the constant spread of stories that imply immigration problems are primarily caused by people from Mexico is what has caused this drop, which is significant if one considers that as recently as 2005, Mexico had a Gallup-issued favorability rating of 74 percent (with only 21 percent unfavorable and the same 5 percent of people being clueless).
Now I can’t say that anything about these numbers is surprising.
I have heard from enough crackpots who want to think the worst of Mexico in just about any possible category – then will get angry whenever someone calls them on their ethnic prejudice.
IN FACT, WHENEVER I hear people complain about the “flaws” of the North American Free Trade Act, I am forced to analyze the specifics of their rants to determine if they really have a problem with the concept of free trade or just have ethnic hangups that make them not want to do business of any sort with “Mexicans.”
I couldn’t help but note that the last time the Mexico favorable rating was so low was back in 1993-94 when it plummeted for a year to 43 percent – literally at the time that NAFTA was being considered by Congress and its critics were quick to switch into Mexico-bashing mode to try (unsuccessfully) to score points.
In short, I think a lot of the rhetoric these days is a bad rap, particularly those people who want to think the drug-related violence in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, along the U.S./Mexico border (just across from El Paso, Texas) is somehow symbolic of the entire nation.
That, of course, is ridiculous. It is about as absurd as believing that 1960’s-era Selma, Ala., was symbolic of all of the United States at that time.
NOT THAT I’M about to start ranting about this ridiculous split in the national perception of Mexico. Because it really is so typical of the way our society views just about everything these days.
Yes, it also seems that people who identify themselves as “Republican” are the ones who are behind the more negative sentiments about the land where three of my grandparents were born. Forty-six percent of GOP-leaning people view Mexico favorably, compared to 55 percent of those who identify themselves as Democrats.
That same Gallup poll showed that the younger people were, the more likely they were to think favorably of Mexico. That is just the way so many issues are perceived these days.
When it comes to age, 60 percent of people between 18 and 34 viewed Mexico favorably, compared to 52 percent of those between 35 and 54. It’s only when one gets to that older generation so set in its ways that you find the negative factors overcoming common sense (38 percent, to be exact).
SO IS THIS yet another issue where as people grow older, the negative attitudes of the past are likely to wither away? I can’t help but think so.
But then again, there’s also the fact that the current “49 percent” favorable rating is an aberation (from 2001-06, that rating was consistently above 64 percent and twice (2003 and 2005) peaked at 74 percent.
Which means this poll ultimately is encouraging for our society as a whole when it comes to how we perceive our national neighbor – we’re likely to realize all the current negative talk being used to shoot down serious immigration reform by tying it in to Mexicans is nothing more than a batch of trash, both from an immigration perspective and from a Mexican viewpoint.
It is best ignored.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: For what it is worth, 23 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats perceive Cuba favorably (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126116/Canada-Places-First-Image-Contest-Iran-Last.aspx), according to the new Gallup Organization poll.
How many people are inclined to think of medications purchased in Mexico as substandard, but bought (http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/healthcare/opinioneditorials/02_guppy_canadadrugstore.html) in Canada as a safe bargain?
Ciudad Juarez has its problems (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1966988), but some are too quick (http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2007/newsletter070107.htm) to try to make it symbolic of a nation.
That is the obvious conclusion that can be reached after reading through the results of a Gallup Organization survey that sought to find out what people in the United States think of other countries that often crop up in the news.
BY AND LARGE, we think highly of Canada and Great Britain, while ranking Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran at the bottom (only 10 percent of those surveyed have a favorable perception of the latter nation).
Only two Latin American countries were includeed in the survey, which probably means that most people don’t give a hoot about Uruguay or anything in South America (which I’m sure the nativists prefer to think of as “phony” America compared to our “real” America).
When it comes to Cuba, it seems our thoughts about Fidel Castro are dominant – only 29 percent think favorably of the Caribbean island nation. But Mexico is a nation that truly shows our split.
For the record, the poll showed that Mexico’ favorability rating among U.S. residents dropped from 51 percent to 49 percent, which the pollster said is an insignificant drop except for the fact that it now puts Mexico’s favorability at slightly less than half of the overall U.S. populace.
BUT IT CAN be said that more people think favorably about Mexico than unfavorably, since the latter only accounted for 46 percent (I guess there are those 5 percent of the people surveyed who are clueless about what exists south of the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande and aren’t ashamed to admit it).
Gallup officials speculate that the constant spread of stories that imply immigration problems are primarily caused by people from Mexico is what has caused this drop, which is significant if one considers that as recently as 2005, Mexico had a Gallup-issued favorability rating of 74 percent (with only 21 percent unfavorable and the same 5 percent of people being clueless).
Now I can’t say that anything about these numbers is surprising.
I have heard from enough crackpots who want to think the worst of Mexico in just about any possible category – then will get angry whenever someone calls them on their ethnic prejudice.
IN FACT, WHENEVER I hear people complain about the “flaws” of the North American Free Trade Act, I am forced to analyze the specifics of their rants to determine if they really have a problem with the concept of free trade or just have ethnic hangups that make them not want to do business of any sort with “Mexicans.”
I couldn’t help but note that the last time the Mexico favorable rating was so low was back in 1993-94 when it plummeted for a year to 43 percent – literally at the time that NAFTA was being considered by Congress and its critics were quick to switch into Mexico-bashing mode to try (unsuccessfully) to score points.
In short, I think a lot of the rhetoric these days is a bad rap, particularly those people who want to think the drug-related violence in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, along the U.S./Mexico border (just across from El Paso, Texas) is somehow symbolic of the entire nation.
That, of course, is ridiculous. It is about as absurd as believing that 1960’s-era Selma, Ala., was symbolic of all of the United States at that time.
NOT THAT I’M about to start ranting about this ridiculous split in the national perception of Mexico. Because it really is so typical of the way our society views just about everything these days.
Yes, it also seems that people who identify themselves as “Republican” are the ones who are behind the more negative sentiments about the land where three of my grandparents were born. Forty-six percent of GOP-leaning people view Mexico favorably, compared to 55 percent of those who identify themselves as Democrats.
That same Gallup poll showed that the younger people were, the more likely they were to think favorably of Mexico. That is just the way so many issues are perceived these days.
When it comes to age, 60 percent of people between 18 and 34 viewed Mexico favorably, compared to 52 percent of those between 35 and 54. It’s only when one gets to that older generation so set in its ways that you find the negative factors overcoming common sense (38 percent, to be exact).
SO IS THIS yet another issue where as people grow older, the negative attitudes of the past are likely to wither away? I can’t help but think so.
But then again, there’s also the fact that the current “49 percent” favorable rating is an aberation (from 2001-06, that rating was consistently above 64 percent and twice (2003 and 2005) peaked at 74 percent.
Which means this poll ultimately is encouraging for our society as a whole when it comes to how we perceive our national neighbor – we’re likely to realize all the current negative talk being used to shoot down serious immigration reform by tying it in to Mexicans is nothing more than a batch of trash, both from an immigration perspective and from a Mexican viewpoint.
It is best ignored.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: For what it is worth, 23 percent of Republicans and 37 percent of Democrats perceive Cuba favorably (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126116/Canada-Places-First-Image-Contest-Iran-Last.aspx), according to the new Gallup Organization poll.
How many people are inclined to think of medications purchased in Mexico as substandard, but bought (http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/healthcare/opinioneditorials/02_guppy_canadadrugstore.html) in Canada as a safe bargain?
Ciudad Juarez has its problems (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1966988), but some are too quick (http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2007/newsletter070107.htm) to try to make it symbolic of a nation.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Where have all the protesters gone?
I can’t remember the last time I had a drink of either Johnny Walker-brand scotch or Jose Cuervo tequila. But that doesn’t mean I’ve been partaking in the boycott that is meant to draw attention to U.S. policies that have inadvertently hurt the Puerto Rican economy.
But some people are deliberately holding off on those two alcoholic beverages, along with other products manufactured or distributed by Diageo plc, a London-based spirits company that claims to be the largest in the world.
SO I GUESS that means I can now say I am politically active by my inertia when it comes to raiding a liquor cabinet.
In fact, it seems like the art of protesting these days just isn’t the same. No more marching through the streets. I literally got to see a group of college-aged kids in Chicago on Friday use their cellular telephones to send text messages to members of Congress.
I suppose it saves wear and tear on shoe-leather when it comes to letting the political people on Capitol Hill know they run just as much a risk of offending Latinos by inaction on immigration reform as they do offending the “Tea Party” types by actually taking a step in the right direction.
But back to the boycott, which I have to admit I literally did not realize existed until Friday, when I happened to be at the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute conference being held in Chicago.
THE GROUP’S PRESIDENT, Juan Andrade, told a gathering of young activists a whole mess of stories related to his younger days participating in protests, some of which ended in his arrest or physical assault by people who were convinced that he was an “agitator.”
Now, Andrade is partaking of a boycott of all products connected to Diageo, even though the “action” that causes outrage only involves Captain Morgan-brand rum.
Diagio officials are benefitting financially from an agreement offered by the U.S. government that gave the company a significant tax break to move their production to a new plant in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
But like many a mid-America town that for many years had a local economy reliant on a single company that chooses to leave, that means someone suffers for the loss of the rum. That “someone” is Puerto Rico. So this boycott is about showing “solidarity” with our ethnic brethren.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT actually made the move possible by offering Diageo a heck of a financial break on the rum excise taxes it otherwise would have had to pay ($6 billion) had it stayed in Puerto Rico. The National Puerto Rican Coalition says the move comes at a time when unemployment on the island commonwealth is at 16.5 percent and one-third of the island’s population lives at the poverty level.
Just last week, the coalition said it wanted the candidates for U.S. Senate from Florida to make a statement denouncing the tax break, which will cost Puerto Rico at least $400 million in rum excise tax revenues annually.
It may only be the Captain Morgan product that is affected by the tax situation, but Andrade said his product boycott extends to anything that Diageo makes (such as Johnny Walker scotch) or distributes (such as Jose Cuervo tequila within the United States and Canada).
Which is why Andrade took the firm stand of telling us, “if you don’t want to strike or fast or march, then at least stop drinking.”
LESS AMUSING WERE the comments of coalition Chairman Miguel Lausell, who last week in a prepared statement, said, “the tax subsidie to Diageo as a result of this short-sighted arrangement will give the company more money than it paid for Captain Morgan in the first place, and on a per-gallon basis, more than it costs them to produce their product.
“Governments often give incentives to companies to relocate, but this is all out of proportion,” Lausell said.
So now we’re in an era where social protest can consist of not taking a drink, or of sending protest messages by texting. Does that make it “protexting?”
It just seems like we’ve undergone a significant change from the days when protest consisted of marching through the streets to make a public statement and usually put oneself at some risk of bodily harm.
THE IDEA OF a boycott involved something such as lettuce or grapes (the latter would have been particularly difficult for me to give up), as a way of showing our solidarity with the United Farm Workers and the late Cesar Chavez.
Now, a social statement can be made in one’s privacy through something as innocuous as a cellphone.
Just one question. How does the “establishment” react?
In the old days, a large protest could end with officials calling out the police to “settle” the score. Now what do they do; have the phone company cut off one’s cellphone service?
-30-
But some people are deliberately holding off on those two alcoholic beverages, along with other products manufactured or distributed by Diageo plc, a London-based spirits company that claims to be the largest in the world.
SO I GUESS that means I can now say I am politically active by my inertia when it comes to raiding a liquor cabinet.
In fact, it seems like the art of protesting these days just isn’t the same. No more marching through the streets. I literally got to see a group of college-aged kids in Chicago on Friday use their cellular telephones to send text messages to members of Congress.
I suppose it saves wear and tear on shoe-leather when it comes to letting the political people on Capitol Hill know they run just as much a risk of offending Latinos by inaction on immigration reform as they do offending the “Tea Party” types by actually taking a step in the right direction.
But back to the boycott, which I have to admit I literally did not realize existed until Friday, when I happened to be at the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute conference being held in Chicago.
THE GROUP’S PRESIDENT, Juan Andrade, told a gathering of young activists a whole mess of stories related to his younger days participating in protests, some of which ended in his arrest or physical assault by people who were convinced that he was an “agitator.”
Now, Andrade is partaking of a boycott of all products connected to Diageo, even though the “action” that causes outrage only involves Captain Morgan-brand rum.
Diagio officials are benefitting financially from an agreement offered by the U.S. government that gave the company a significant tax break to move their production to a new plant in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
But like many a mid-America town that for many years had a local economy reliant on a single company that chooses to leave, that means someone suffers for the loss of the rum. That “someone” is Puerto Rico. So this boycott is about showing “solidarity” with our ethnic brethren.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT actually made the move possible by offering Diageo a heck of a financial break on the rum excise taxes it otherwise would have had to pay ($6 billion) had it stayed in Puerto Rico. The National Puerto Rican Coalition says the move comes at a time when unemployment on the island commonwealth is at 16.5 percent and one-third of the island’s population lives at the poverty level.
Just last week, the coalition said it wanted the candidates for U.S. Senate from Florida to make a statement denouncing the tax break, which will cost Puerto Rico at least $400 million in rum excise tax revenues annually.
It may only be the Captain Morgan product that is affected by the tax situation, but Andrade said his product boycott extends to anything that Diageo makes (such as Johnny Walker scotch) or distributes (such as Jose Cuervo tequila within the United States and Canada).
Which is why Andrade took the firm stand of telling us, “if you don’t want to strike or fast or march, then at least stop drinking.”
LESS AMUSING WERE the comments of coalition Chairman Miguel Lausell, who last week in a prepared statement, said, “the tax subsidie to Diageo as a result of this short-sighted arrangement will give the company more money than it paid for Captain Morgan in the first place, and on a per-gallon basis, more than it costs them to produce their product.
“Governments often give incentives to companies to relocate, but this is all out of proportion,” Lausell said.
So now we’re in an era where social protest can consist of not taking a drink, or of sending protest messages by texting. Does that make it “protexting?”
It just seems like we’ve undergone a significant change from the days when protest consisted of marching through the streets to make a public statement and usually put oneself at some risk of bodily harm.
THE IDEA OF a boycott involved something such as lettuce or grapes (the latter would have been particularly difficult for me to give up), as a way of showing our solidarity with the United Farm Workers and the late Cesar Chavez.
Now, a social statement can be made in one’s privacy through something as innocuous as a cellphone.
Just one question. How does the “establishment” react?
In the old days, a large protest could end with officials calling out the police to “settle” the score. Now what do they do; have the phone company cut off one’s cellphone service?
-30-
Friday, February 19, 2010
LATINOS en DEPORTES: Teams U.S.A. and España the ones to watch in Olympics
I’m sure someone is about to make a stupid joke about Latinos, or Latin Americans in general, being unable to cope with the cold weather in Vancouv
er – the Canadian city that has hosted this year’s version of the Winter Olympic Games.
But there are those of us with such ethnic roots who are watching these events, in part wondering if one of our ethnic brethren will manage to achieve a moment of athletic glory. Those athletes are partaking in events ranging from speed skating to bobsledding.
ONE ONLY HAS to watch the U.S. Olympic team to find people such as Jennifer Rodriguez or Ben Agosto to see the truth (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sacultura/84075212.html) in such a statement.
Then again, there’s also the Olympic team from Spain – all 17, including five-time Olympian Maria Jose Rienda, 34.
But for those who want to stick strictly to the Americas, Peru and Brazil also have select individuals partaking in skiing and snowboarding.
Not that any of these athletes, at least not as of when this was written, have actually won an Olympic (http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-medals/medallists/) medal. But they still deserve a bit of recognition just for the work they did to even qualify to compete in an Olympiad.
PERSONALLY, I FIND the international aspect of all this to be most interesting, just because it h
as the feel of including the world in sport – unlike the U.S. professional sports leagues that are more than willing to search for talented ballplayers anywhere in the world, but then does not like those athletes to get too worked up over where they come from. Is the potentially great Mariners pitcher Felix Hernandez a Venezuelan, or a token Seattleite?
Not that that fact will prevent me from enjoying base
ball and the 2010 season – for which the spring training camps in Arizona and Florida opened for business this week.
So for those of you who are interested in watching athletics, the winter Olympics will run through next Friday, with the first exhibition games of spring training baseball beginning three days later in Florida.
Here’s hoping you can make it through that one weekend in-between with just college basketball to watch on television.
-30-
er – the Canadian city that has hosted this year’s version of the Winter Olympic Games.But there are those of us with such ethnic roots who are watching these events, in part wondering if one of our ethnic brethren will manage to achieve a moment of athletic glory. Those athletes are partaking in events ranging from speed skating to bobsledding.
ONE ONLY HAS to watch the U.S. Olympic team to find people such as Jennifer Rodriguez or Ben Agosto to see the truth (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sacultura/84075212.html) in such a statement.
Then again, there’s also the Olympic team from Spain – all 17, including five-time Olympian Maria Jose Rienda, 34.
But for those who want to stick strictly to the Americas, Peru and Brazil also have select individuals partaking in skiing and snowboarding.
Not that any of these athletes, at least not as of when this was written, have actually won an Olympic (http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-medals/medallists/) medal. But they still deserve a bit of recognition just for the work they did to even qualify to compete in an Olympiad.
PERSONALLY, I FIND the international aspect of all this to be most interesting, just because it h
as the feel of including the world in sport – unlike the U.S. professional sports leagues that are more than willing to search for talented ballplayers anywhere in the world, but then does not like those athletes to get too worked up over where they come from. Is the potentially great Mariners pitcher Felix Hernandez a Venezuelan, or a token Seattleite?Not that that fact will prevent me from enjoying base
ball and the 2010 season – for which the spring training camps in Arizona and Florida opened for business this week.So for those of you who are interested in watching athletics, the winter Olympics will run through next Friday, with the first exhibition games of spring training baseball beginning three days later in Florida.
Here’s hoping you can make it through that one weekend in-between with just college basketball to watch on television.
-30-
Thursday, February 18, 2010
What is causing Latino population in Atlanta area to move?
Call it an immigration rorschach test, if you will. Because I would think that one’s initial reaction to a recent story in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (http://www.ajc.com/news/hispanics-flee-law-job-307611.html) about population shifts in that Georgia city probably say a lot about how one perceives the issue.
There are communities in the suburbs of Atlanta that are seeing sudden declines in the number of Latinos who live there. The newspaper cited figures ranging from church attendance to business closings and arrest statistics to come to their conclusion.
BUT IT SEEMS that many people in that area want to focus in on one aspect of the issue and make that the primary reason.
Is it the tougher crackdown by local law enforcement, where some sheriff’s departments now screen inmates for immigration status upon their arrival at the county jail (with the non-citizens turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement)?
Or is it the fact that the tougher economic times mean there just aren’t any jobs worth having in that area?
I’d argue the latter. It’s not like there’s some natural reason for Latinos to be in Georgia. I would expect many of the families that moved into the area did so out of a belief that Atlanta and its surrounding area was a boom-town of sorts and would provide them with work.
IF WORK DISAPPEARS, we’re going elsewhere.
But there are those who will argue the former. They’d say that the word is getting out that Latinos are leaving voluntarily before they get caught for something, which they’d argue is a good thing because they want to believe that Latinos really don’t belong there.
It is true that since local sheriffs have started their own immigration status screening, the number of inmates in the county jails who are not U.S. citizens has declined significantly. One local sheriff told the Atlanta newspaper that such a result is “the proper outcome.” He thinks he’s bringing the immigration issue under control.
I’d argue that all it’s really doing is driving the people who don’t have the proper papers to live openly in the United States even further underground, which is something I think is bad for our society as a whole.
DO WE REALLY want more people living in secrecy, trying to stay in the shadows undetected. I would think we’d be better off having everybody out in the open (which also is why I don’t understand the big stink from those people who only want U.S. citizens counted by the Census Bureau – I want to know about everybody who is living here).
Which is why I think if there really is a population decline, it is because people are moving elsewhere to find work.
Why would someone stay in a place that puts on hostile airs that also offers little to no chance of finding employment to support oneself and family members (which for many of the “undocumented” was the primary reason for coming to this country to begin with)?
But that would mean if there is a decrease in places such as the Atlanta suburbs, then there has to be corresponding increases in population elsewhere. Those former suburban Atlanta Latinos have to have gone somewhere.
THE NEWSPAPER’S REPORT found significant increases in Latinos enrolling in English to Speakers of Other Languages courses in counties where the local police do not engage in policies meant to do the work of the federal government in terms of enforcing federal immigration laws (just think how upset local officials get whenever the federal government intercedes on what they want to perceive is a local issue).
A lot of this is anecdotal. Nobody knows for sure what is going on in our society. Invariably, somebody’s behavior of today is going to look incredibly foolish some 50 years from now.
But the idea that the growing Latino population ultimately will provide its significant benefits to places that don’t treat it like un enemigo strikes me as highly ironic.
Because for all the complaints we hear from the nativist critics of immigration reform, some of whom claim these newcomers will turn the United States into a third-world country, it seems totally appropriate that their communities ultimately will be the ones that don’t gain from the benefits of the Latino population growth.
I RECENTLY NOTICED a study conducted by Indiana state government – one that says Latinos in that state (http://nwitimes.com/news/foreign-language/article_c78a63f2-039a-5b00-be4b-a55ae71665a5.html) will spend $7.3 billion during 2010. Even those dreaded “illegal aliens” in Indiana had an income in 2007 of $1.3 billion – and paid state and local taxes of $97 million. I’m sure there are states where the Latino economic impact is even more significant.
Perhaps the day will come when “third world” will take on a meaning of “immigrant hostile.” As far as I’m concerned, it serves them right.
-30-
There are communities in the suburbs of Atlanta that are seeing sudden declines in the number of Latinos who live there. The newspaper cited figures ranging from church attendance to business closings and arrest statistics to come to their conclusion.
BUT IT SEEMS that many people in that area want to focus in on one aspect of the issue and make that the primary reason.
Is it the tougher crackdown by local law enforcement, where some sheriff’s departments now screen inmates for immigration status upon their arrival at the county jail (with the non-citizens turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement)?
Or is it the fact that the tougher economic times mean there just aren’t any jobs worth having in that area?
I’d argue the latter. It’s not like there’s some natural reason for Latinos to be in Georgia. I would expect many of the families that moved into the area did so out of a belief that Atlanta and its surrounding area was a boom-town of sorts and would provide them with work.
IF WORK DISAPPEARS, we’re going elsewhere.
But there are those who will argue the former. They’d say that the word is getting out that Latinos are leaving voluntarily before they get caught for something, which they’d argue is a good thing because they want to believe that Latinos really don’t belong there.
It is true that since local sheriffs have started their own immigration status screening, the number of inmates in the county jails who are not U.S. citizens has declined significantly. One local sheriff told the Atlanta newspaper that such a result is “the proper outcome.” He thinks he’s bringing the immigration issue under control.
I’d argue that all it’s really doing is driving the people who don’t have the proper papers to live openly in the United States even further underground, which is something I think is bad for our society as a whole.
DO WE REALLY want more people living in secrecy, trying to stay in the shadows undetected. I would think we’d be better off having everybody out in the open (which also is why I don’t understand the big stink from those people who only want U.S. citizens counted by the Census Bureau – I want to know about everybody who is living here).
Which is why I think if there really is a population decline, it is because people are moving elsewhere to find work.
Why would someone stay in a place that puts on hostile airs that also offers little to no chance of finding employment to support oneself and family members (which for many of the “undocumented” was the primary reason for coming to this country to begin with)?
But that would mean if there is a decrease in places such as the Atlanta suburbs, then there has to be corresponding increases in population elsewhere. Those former suburban Atlanta Latinos have to have gone somewhere.
THE NEWSPAPER’S REPORT found significant increases in Latinos enrolling in English to Speakers of Other Languages courses in counties where the local police do not engage in policies meant to do the work of the federal government in terms of enforcing federal immigration laws (just think how upset local officials get whenever the federal government intercedes on what they want to perceive is a local issue).
A lot of this is anecdotal. Nobody knows for sure what is going on in our society. Invariably, somebody’s behavior of today is going to look incredibly foolish some 50 years from now.
But the idea that the growing Latino population ultimately will provide its significant benefits to places that don’t treat it like un enemigo strikes me as highly ironic.
Because for all the complaints we hear from the nativist critics of immigration reform, some of whom claim these newcomers will turn the United States into a third-world country, it seems totally appropriate that their communities ultimately will be the ones that don’t gain from the benefits of the Latino population growth.
I RECENTLY NOTICED a study conducted by Indiana state government – one that says Latinos in that state (http://nwitimes.com/news/foreign-language/article_c78a63f2-039a-5b00-be4b-a55ae71665a5.html) will spend $7.3 billion during 2010. Even those dreaded “illegal aliens” in Indiana had an income in 2007 of $1.3 billion – and paid state and local taxes of $97 million. I’m sure there are states where the Latino economic impact is even more significant.
Perhaps the day will come when “third world” will take on a meaning of “immigrant hostile.” As far as I’m concerned, it serves them right.
-30-
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
EXTRA: Salt Lake City Catholics making local effort
Considering that I published a commentary implying that local churches amongst the Catholics aren’t doing enough to support the overall direction in favor of immigration reform, I probably should note a recent grant received by the Catholic Diocese for Salt Lake City, Utah.
The church received $270,000 from the Chicago-based Catholic Church Extension Society to help pay for projects that benefit the growing Latino population in Utah. It is estimated that about three-quarters of the Catholic population of that state is also Latino.
WHILE NOT SPECIFICALLY intended to bolster the immigration reform effort, the move reported by the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper definitely will help make the Catholic Church in Utah more Latino-friendly.
For money (similar grants were given to 40 other dioceses across the United States) will be used to help increase the number of (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14412544) Spanish-speaking Catholic lay leaders.
-30-
The church received $270,000 from the Chicago-based Catholic Church Extension Society to help pay for projects that benefit the growing Latino population in Utah. It is estimated that about three-quarters of the Catholic population of that state is also Latino.
WHILE NOT SPECIFICALLY intended to bolster the immigration reform effort, the move reported by the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper definitely will help make the Catholic Church in Utah more Latino-friendly.
For money (similar grants were given to 40 other dioceses across the United States) will be used to help increase the number of (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14412544) Spanish-speaking Catholic lay leaders.
-30-
Does religious “support” mean much if not local?
I do some work for a daily newspaper in the Chicago suburbs, and recently had an assignment that had me listen to some people concerned with the issue of immigration reform who were upset that their local church leadership has not been more outspoken on the issue.
For the record, these particular people were Latino, and they were Catholic.
THEY ALL NOTED the facts that the U.S. Conference of Bishops was engaged in a postcard campaign meant to encourage Catholics across the country to let their local politicians know that something needs to be done to reform the nation’s immigration laws.
The Catholic Church, as a whole, also has taken a stance on the political situation in the United States, saying it believes the issue to be a humanitarian one because the current immigration laws create situations where families can be split up (a parent deported, with children born in this country left behind).
The church does not support any specific bill or proposal pending on Capitol Hill, but believes it is time for action to occur.
It’s not even just Catholics who “officially” are supportive.
EVANGELICAL CHURCHES (WHOM many people associate with the social conservatives who in recent years have been the base of the Republican Party that has become an obstacle to serious immigration reform) have issued their own statements about the matter being a humanitarian question.
Just last month, those churches organized rallies that bordered more on being prayer vigils in Phoenix (the home city of controversial Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio) and other cities across the United States, all with the hopes of raising the profile of the immigration reform issue (ie., letting people know that building barricades along the U.S./Mexico border and increasing deportations is NOT reform).
Even the Catholics plan to take on a rally. It is the Catholic Bishops conference that is helping to organize a rally scheduled for March 21 in Washington, D.C., hoping to create something akin to the “Million Man March” October 1995 to create an image of ethnics on Capitol Hill demanding action.
Of course, no one has put a number on how many Latinos and other people with a strong sense of their immigrant roots will show up in Washington on that date. Perhaps no one wants the same ridicule that some nitwits dished out to the “Million Man March,” which only attracted some 850,000 people.
STILL, AN IMPRESSIVE figure.
But it was in listening to this particular group of activists discuss how they can be included in the upcoming Washington protest (a lot of talk about how much it costs to rent buses, and whether they should attempt to provide some food or merely tell people to bring their own) that complaints came up about the local churches.
Some parishes were on board. Some weren’t. The local Catholic Diocese was saying nothing.
Not that they were doing anything publicly to disagree with the official stance of the Catholic church, as decreed by Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, I’m sure that if I were to call that particular diocese and ask them questions about the issue, they would eagerly quote to me the words of the church as a whole.
THEY MAY EVEN agree with them personally.
But there is that impression that many local churches would feel more comfortable if the issue were merely to go away for a time. Which in some ways puts them in line ideologically with more moderate Democrats who wish they could get away with not addressing this issue, even though the strong Latino support they have received in recent elections is going to pressure them into saying something publicly.
There was a poll taken last November by Zogby International, one that found many people who considered themselves religious had their own hangups about the public stances their churches were taking.
A poll of Catholics, Protestants and Jewish people found only 46 percent were supportive of the official rhetoric coming from on up high that supported changes in immigration laws meant to allow more people to stay in this country. Fifty-one percent said they thought their churches were wrong. (The rest weren’t sure what to think).
THAT SAME POLL found that among Catholics, 69 percent think current immigration levels are too high, while only 23 percent said they would support changes in federal law that would allow people who currently have immigration status “problems” to be able to remain legally.
So what happens now? We get to ponder the question of whether many religious individuals are hostile to immigration reform because their local leaders aren’t doing enough to spread the word? Or are these local leaders merely reflecting the attitude of their local congregations in not pushing church rhetoric that they know their parishioners would rather not hear right now?
-30-
EDITOR'S NOTE: Part background information and part self-promotion, an Indiana-based activist group (http://nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/article_a4445f1a-19b5-51b7-80ac-2b2ce721c646.html) wants to get more churches involved in the issue of immigration reform.
For the record, these particular people were Latino, and they were Catholic.
THEY ALL NOTED the facts that the U.S. Conference of Bishops was engaged in a postcard campaign meant to encourage Catholics across the country to let their local politicians know that something needs to be done to reform the nation’s immigration laws.
The Catholic Church, as a whole, also has taken a stance on the political situation in the United States, saying it believes the issue to be a humanitarian one because the current immigration laws create situations where families can be split up (a parent deported, with children born in this country left behind).
The church does not support any specific bill or proposal pending on Capitol Hill, but believes it is time for action to occur.
It’s not even just Catholics who “officially” are supportive.
EVANGELICAL CHURCHES (WHOM many people associate with the social conservatives who in recent years have been the base of the Republican Party that has become an obstacle to serious immigration reform) have issued their own statements about the matter being a humanitarian question.
Just last month, those churches organized rallies that bordered more on being prayer vigils in Phoenix (the home city of controversial Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio) and other cities across the United States, all with the hopes of raising the profile of the immigration reform issue (ie., letting people know that building barricades along the U.S./Mexico border and increasing deportations is NOT reform).
Even the Catholics plan to take on a rally. It is the Catholic Bishops conference that is helping to organize a rally scheduled for March 21 in Washington, D.C., hoping to create something akin to the “Million Man March” October 1995 to create an image of ethnics on Capitol Hill demanding action.
Of course, no one has put a number on how many Latinos and other people with a strong sense of their immigrant roots will show up in Washington on that date. Perhaps no one wants the same ridicule that some nitwits dished out to the “Million Man March,” which only attracted some 850,000 people.
STILL, AN IMPRESSIVE figure.
But it was in listening to this particular group of activists discuss how they can be included in the upcoming Washington protest (a lot of talk about how much it costs to rent buses, and whether they should attempt to provide some food or merely tell people to bring their own) that complaints came up about the local churches.
Some parishes were on board. Some weren’t. The local Catholic Diocese was saying nothing.
Not that they were doing anything publicly to disagree with the official stance of the Catholic church, as decreed by Pope Benedict XVI. In fact, I’m sure that if I were to call that particular diocese and ask them questions about the issue, they would eagerly quote to me the words of the church as a whole.
THEY MAY EVEN agree with them personally.
But there is that impression that many local churches would feel more comfortable if the issue were merely to go away for a time. Which in some ways puts them in line ideologically with more moderate Democrats who wish they could get away with not addressing this issue, even though the strong Latino support they have received in recent elections is going to pressure them into saying something publicly.
There was a poll taken last November by Zogby International, one that found many people who considered themselves religious had their own hangups about the public stances their churches were taking.
A poll of Catholics, Protestants and Jewish people found only 46 percent were supportive of the official rhetoric coming from on up high that supported changes in immigration laws meant to allow more people to stay in this country. Fifty-one percent said they thought their churches were wrong. (The rest weren’t sure what to think).
THAT SAME POLL found that among Catholics, 69 percent think current immigration levels are too high, while only 23 percent said they would support changes in federal law that would allow people who currently have immigration status “problems” to be able to remain legally.
So what happens now? We get to ponder the question of whether many religious individuals are hostile to immigration reform because their local leaders aren’t doing enough to spread the word? Or are these local leaders merely reflecting the attitude of their local congregations in not pushing church rhetoric that they know their parishioners would rather not hear right now?
-30-
EDITOR'S NOTE: Part background information and part self-promotion, an Indiana-based activist group (http://nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/article_a4445f1a-19b5-51b7-80ac-2b2ce721c646.html) wants to get more churches involved in the issue of immigration reform.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Latino voter bloc confounding all, even though it's really simple to comprehend
A headline published on the website of the Miami Herald newspaper struck me as wishful thinking on the part of the Republican Party.
“GOP hopes to capitalize on Latino disappointment with Obama,” read the headline (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1481552.html). It seems that some Republicans think that Latinos are going to start supporting GOP candidates because of the fact that Congress has failed thus far to move forward with anything resembling reform of the nation’s immigration laws.
IN SHORT, LATINOS are going to “punish” President Barack Obama by putting more Republicans in Congress – which in today’s political atmosphere would guarantee that he would be unable to achieve much of anything of substance.
There’s just one problem with that kind of logic – it makes no sense.
For the reality is that the base of the Republican Party these days has done so much to express hostility on ethnic-related issues that Latinos understand that it is Republican officials in Washington who are our obstacle to anything being accomplished.
If there is a level of disgust, it is with officials who use the Democratic Party label and enjoy the benefits that come about with the high level of Latinos who vote for their candidates, but then refuse to support such issues and seem more concerned with not offending the Republican opposition.
IF IT READS like I’m saying that Latinos think the “blue dogs” (the conservative Dems who usually come from rural communities) are the problem, you’d be correct.
It is the reason I believe that many people who are so eager to lambast Obama for partisan reasons are misguided. I couldn’t help but notice the Gallup Organization, which on Monday released its weekly job approval tracker.
Overall, he gets a 51 percent approval rating. But I couldn’t help but notice that when they broke it down among various types of people, Obama’s Latino approval rating was 67 percent – and that was a 3 percent hike compared to last week.
In fact, the two “groups” that had less than half of their members supporting Obama were white people (42 percent) and southerners (49 percent).
GEE, WHAT A shock. White people from southern states (although I realize that those two statistics are not a combination in and of themselves) who were never that enthused about Obama in 2008 (that is where Republican John McCain got the bulk of his 200 electoral votes) still aren’t enthused about him.
Two-thirds of Latinos still think favorably about Obama, yet Republican political observers now want to think we’re going to dump on him. Perhaps it is that kind of politically partisan thought that Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., finds so repulsive that he cited it as his reason for not wanting to return to Washington for a third term in the Senate.
On a certain level, I appreciate the predicament that Obama and Democratic Party partisans face these days. The mood among the Latino electorate is that it is time elected officials start doing things on our behalf. After all, we voted for them. We supported them.
It’s time for them to do their “jobs” and include us in the “people” they refer to when they talk about their jobs as doing, “the peoples’ business.”
THIS COMES AT the same time that the conservative activists are trying to stir up the so-called “Tea Party” movement that wants to elect as many social conservative political people, in part as a direct opposition to the Obama Administration.
Which means that a loud, obnoxious portion of the electorate is going to openly resent anything done on behalf of the growing Latino population (a factor they consider to be a part of the “problem”) and will be motivated all the more to back GOPers.
But if they try to tone things down to keep the “Tea Party” people calm, they offend the Latino voter bloc.
I think we’re at a key point in determining the political partisanship of Latinos (who are expected by 2050 to comprise nearly one-third of the nation’s overall population).
I BELIEVE THAT the Republican establishment has blown just about any chance they had (and it was a good chance) to gain the support of Latinos. But now, Democrats by showing apathy could very well wind up doing the same thing.
Could it be that the political “independent” of the future is primarily going to be those of us whose ethnic origins trace back to Latin American nations (if not Spain proper)?
It could be, particularly if Democrats don’t come to the realization that the “medication” to the Tea Party virus that is spreading through parts of our nation could very well be the Latino voter.
Taking steps to acknowledge the numbers and importance of Latinos in this country could be what enables Democrats to overcome those voters whose use of Revolutionary War imagery makes me wonder if they would prefer our country socially to take steps backward a couple of centuries to the 18th Century?
-30-
“GOP hopes to capitalize on Latino disappointment with Obama,” read the headline (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1481552.html). It seems that some Republicans think that Latinos are going to start supporting GOP candidates because of the fact that Congress has failed thus far to move forward with anything resembling reform of the nation’s immigration laws.
IN SHORT, LATINOS are going to “punish” President Barack Obama by putting more Republicans in Congress – which in today’s political atmosphere would guarantee that he would be unable to achieve much of anything of substance.
There’s just one problem with that kind of logic – it makes no sense.
For the reality is that the base of the Republican Party these days has done so much to express hostility on ethnic-related issues that Latinos understand that it is Republican officials in Washington who are our obstacle to anything being accomplished.
If there is a level of disgust, it is with officials who use the Democratic Party label and enjoy the benefits that come about with the high level of Latinos who vote for their candidates, but then refuse to support such issues and seem more concerned with not offending the Republican opposition.
IF IT READS like I’m saying that Latinos think the “blue dogs” (the conservative Dems who usually come from rural communities) are the problem, you’d be correct.
It is the reason I believe that many people who are so eager to lambast Obama for partisan reasons are misguided. I couldn’t help but notice the Gallup Organization, which on Monday released its weekly job approval tracker.
Overall, he gets a 51 percent approval rating. But I couldn’t help but notice that when they broke it down among various types of people, Obama’s Latino approval rating was 67 percent – and that was a 3 percent hike compared to last week.
In fact, the two “groups” that had less than half of their members supporting Obama were white people (42 percent) and southerners (49 percent).
GEE, WHAT A shock. White people from southern states (although I realize that those two statistics are not a combination in and of themselves) who were never that enthused about Obama in 2008 (that is where Republican John McCain got the bulk of his 200 electoral votes) still aren’t enthused about him.
Two-thirds of Latinos still think favorably about Obama, yet Republican political observers now want to think we’re going to dump on him. Perhaps it is that kind of politically partisan thought that Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., finds so repulsive that he cited it as his reason for not wanting to return to Washington for a third term in the Senate.
On a certain level, I appreciate the predicament that Obama and Democratic Party partisans face these days. The mood among the Latino electorate is that it is time elected officials start doing things on our behalf. After all, we voted for them. We supported them.
It’s time for them to do their “jobs” and include us in the “people” they refer to when they talk about their jobs as doing, “the peoples’ business.”
THIS COMES AT the same time that the conservative activists are trying to stir up the so-called “Tea Party” movement that wants to elect as many social conservative political people, in part as a direct opposition to the Obama Administration.
Which means that a loud, obnoxious portion of the electorate is going to openly resent anything done on behalf of the growing Latino population (a factor they consider to be a part of the “problem”) and will be motivated all the more to back GOPers.
But if they try to tone things down to keep the “Tea Party” people calm, they offend the Latino voter bloc.
I think we’re at a key point in determining the political partisanship of Latinos (who are expected by 2050 to comprise nearly one-third of the nation’s overall population).
I BELIEVE THAT the Republican establishment has blown just about any chance they had (and it was a good chance) to gain the support of Latinos. But now, Democrats by showing apathy could very well wind up doing the same thing.
Could it be that the political “independent” of the future is primarily going to be those of us whose ethnic origins trace back to Latin American nations (if not Spain proper)?
It could be, particularly if Democrats don’t come to the realization that the “medication” to the Tea Party virus that is spreading through parts of our nation could very well be the Latino voter.
Taking steps to acknowledge the numbers and importance of Latinos in this country could be what enables Democrats to overcome those voters whose use of Revolutionary War imagery makes me wonder if they would prefer our country socially to take steps backward a couple of centuries to the 18th Century?
-30-
Monday, February 15, 2010
Border practices’ absurdity becoming more clear
Anybody who isn’t blinded by nativist nonsense realizes the day-to-day practices taking place in the southwestern United States in the name of 
preserving our border security often are outright absurd.
Too many people want to think that somehow the national security of our country is at stake in trying to justify federal immigration policies that all too often are meant merely to uphold ethnic hangups that some individuals in our society still have.
THAT IS WHY I couldn’t help but notice a pair of stories emanating from Arizona that deal, in one way or another, with the influx of newcomers to this country from Latin American countries – the ones that the nativists are desperate to think of as “criminal” by their very existence.
There is the federal lawsuit pending against the Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff’s police. The sheriff for the Phoenix area is Joe Arpaio, whose attempts at “law and order” mentality often single out the growing Latino population in that metropolitan area.
Those Latinos have activists with lawyers who are suing the county to try to get the police to back off form their policies of surprise sweeps that allegedly are an attempt by local police to enforce federal immigration law, but which usually devolve into thinking that every Latino is, or ought to be, “illegal.”
This lawsuit is far from being resolved, and I’m not about to claim that the ruling made last week by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow is a sign that it ultimately will be resolved in favor of the activists. But Snow said he plans to impose sanctions against the sheriff’s police for the way in which they preserved records of their surprise sweeps – the ones that document exactly what wrongdoing was uncovered.
ACTUALLY, THE SANCTIONS will be because of the fact that sheriff’s police largely did NOT preserve records. Police say they preserved some statistics that total up the end results of all the sweeps, and that they thought the individual incidents did not necessarily need to be preserved.
It could be that the police in the Phoenix area are that clueless about the need to preserve anything that could be preserved as evidence. Or it could be what the activists suspect, that any records from the individual incidents would merely uncover just how arbitrary these sweeps are when it comes to picking out people for special attention.
All too often, it turns out to be anyone who “looks” Latino to the “trained eye” of a Maricopa County sheriff’s deputy.
Snow said he would impose sanctions, but didn’t say what they would be. The Arizona Republic newspaper reported that he wants to see how many of the records (including deleted e-mails) can be “restored” before he starts trying to penalize the police.
IN THEORY, THEIR cooperation could minimize the penalty. But Arpaio is the guy who likes to think he’s tough because he makes the inmates in his county jail wear pink underwear, and who told the Wall Street Journal last week, “we have the inherent right to enforce immigration laws. If Washington doesn’t like it, I recommend they change the laws.”
That is what some people in Washington want to do – change the laws to something more rational. I suspect, however, that such change is exactly what Arpaio and his supporters would oppose.
I just find it encouraging to learn that at least somewhere, there is a judge who realizes that all is not well in the world of Joe Arpaio and that perhaps his sheriff’s department deserves much closer attention.
Also deserving attention was a story out of Tuscon from the Associated Press – one that shows a fatal consequence to the harsh winter weather that has been hitting much of the continental United States (even places that usually don’t get much in the way of snow or cold).
PEOPLE ARE DYING out in the desert that separates the United States from Mexico because of their exposure to the cold weather that they weren’t the least bit prepared for. Since November, there have been nine deaths of people whose bodies were found in the desert who apparently were trying to make the walk into this country for a better life.
By comparison, the wire service reports that nine is about the figure for how many people trying to get into the United States died from hypothermia in the THREE PREVIOUS YEARS.
My point in bringing this up is to show that we have a natural gulf separating our two nations, and the idea of people flooding across the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande into the United States is absurd. It is a deadly region, and the idea that building barricades along the U.S./Mexico border will affect the situation at all is ridiculous.
If anything, it merely encourages more people to avoid the few spots where it isn’t absolutely dangerous to try to walk into the country. Which means that in addition to being a waste of federal tax dollars, all those barricades constructed during the Bush years (and being completed in the Age of Obama) aren’t going to do a thing to stop the problem.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Federal officials have tried to restrict the ability of Phoenix-area sheriff’s police (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/02/13/20100213judge-rips-sheriff-arpaio.html) to take it upon themselves to “enforce” the nation’s immigration laws, only to run into local opposition that at times seems reminiscent of the Southern sheriffs of old who openly defied federal attempts to impose civil rights for all.
Last month was one of the wettest in Arizona history, which has caused weather conditions that are increasing (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-immigrants14-2010feb14,0,3706935.story) the fatalities of people who tried to slip into the United States without a visa.
preserving our border security often are outright absurd.Too many people want to think that somehow the national security of our country is at stake in trying to justify federal immigration policies that all too often are meant merely to uphold ethnic hangups that some individuals in our society still have.
THAT IS WHY I couldn’t help but notice a pair of stories emanating from Arizona that deal, in one way or another, with the influx of newcomers to this country from Latin American countries – the ones that the nativists are desperate to think of as “criminal” by their very existence.
There is the federal lawsuit pending against the Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff’s police. The sheriff for the Phoenix area is Joe Arpaio, whose attempts at “law and order” mentality often single out the growing Latino population in that metropolitan area.
Those Latinos have activists with lawyers who are suing the county to try to get the police to back off form their policies of surprise sweeps that allegedly are an attempt by local police to enforce federal immigration law, but which usually devolve into thinking that every Latino is, or ought to be, “illegal.”
This lawsuit is far from being resolved, and I’m not about to claim that the ruling made last week by U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow is a sign that it ultimately will be resolved in favor of the activists. But Snow said he plans to impose sanctions against the sheriff’s police for the way in which they preserved records of their surprise sweeps – the ones that document exactly what wrongdoing was uncovered.
ACTUALLY, THE SANCTIONS will be because of the fact that sheriff’s police largely did NOT preserve records. Police say they preserved some statistics that total up the end results of all the sweeps, and that they thought the individual incidents did not necessarily need to be preserved.
It could be that the police in the Phoenix area are that clueless about the need to preserve anything that could be preserved as evidence. Or it could be what the activists suspect, that any records from the individual incidents would merely uncover just how arbitrary these sweeps are when it comes to picking out people for special attention.
All too often, it turns out to be anyone who “looks” Latino to the “trained eye” of a Maricopa County sheriff’s deputy.
Snow said he would impose sanctions, but didn’t say what they would be. The Arizona Republic newspaper reported that he wants to see how many of the records (including deleted e-mails) can be “restored” before he starts trying to penalize the police.
IN THEORY, THEIR cooperation could minimize the penalty. But Arpaio is the guy who likes to think he’s tough because he makes the inmates in his county jail wear pink underwear, and who told the Wall Street Journal last week, “we have the inherent right to enforce immigration laws. If Washington doesn’t like it, I recommend they change the laws.”
That is what some people in Washington want to do – change the laws to something more rational. I suspect, however, that such change is exactly what Arpaio and his supporters would oppose.
I just find it encouraging to learn that at least somewhere, there is a judge who realizes that all is not well in the world of Joe Arpaio and that perhaps his sheriff’s department deserves much closer attention.
Also deserving attention was a story out of Tuscon from the Associated Press – one that shows a fatal consequence to the harsh winter weather that has been hitting much of the continental United States (even places that usually don’t get much in the way of snow or cold).
PEOPLE ARE DYING out in the desert that separates the United States from Mexico because of their exposure to the cold weather that they weren’t the least bit prepared for. Since November, there have been nine deaths of people whose bodies were found in the desert who apparently were trying to make the walk into this country for a better life.
By comparison, the wire service reports that nine is about the figure for how many people trying to get into the United States died from hypothermia in the THREE PREVIOUS YEARS.
My point in bringing this up is to show that we have a natural gulf separating our two nations, and the idea of people flooding across the Rio Bravo del Norte/Rio Grande into the United States is absurd. It is a deadly region, and the idea that building barricades along the U.S./Mexico border will affect the situation at all is ridiculous.
If anything, it merely encourages more people to avoid the few spots where it isn’t absolutely dangerous to try to walk into the country. Which means that in addition to being a waste of federal tax dollars, all those barricades constructed during the Bush years (and being completed in the Age of Obama) aren’t going to do a thing to stop the problem.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Federal officials have tried to restrict the ability of Phoenix-area sheriff’s police (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/02/13/20100213judge-rips-sheriff-arpaio.html) to take it upon themselves to “enforce” the nation’s immigration laws, only to run into local opposition that at times seems reminiscent of the Southern sheriffs of old who openly defied federal attempts to impose civil rights for all.
Last month was one of the wettest in Arizona history, which has caused weather conditions that are increasing (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-immigrants14-2010feb14,0,3706935.story) the fatalities of people who tried to slip into the United States without a visa.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
When is a Latino candidate not legit?
In my home state of Illinois, Republicans have tried giving themselves pats on the back in recent days because of t
he fact that one of the GOP’s nominees for a statewide political post is a Latino.
They’re not lying. Robert Enriquez, who was born in Honduras and also lived for a time in Panama but has held U.S. citizenship all his life, is the nominee for Illinois secretary of state – the government post that puts its holder’s name on the driver’s license or ID card of every state resident, and also oversees a small army of state workers.
IT’S A VISIBLE post. It’s holder has significant influence over public policy. And Enriquez got that nomination by being the only GOP candidate to express interest in running for it in the Nov. 2 elections.
The reason for that is because the incumbent is Jesse White, a long-time and popular Chicago Democrat who has held the post for 12 years, is going for a fourth four-year term, and is possibly the only Democrat that GOP officials don’t view as being particularly vulnerable (no matter how much they want to believe the mood of the country is swinging over to the Republican Party).
In fact, I have read some rhetoric that implies the Illinois Republican Party is the political party of diversity because they have Enriquez on their statewide ticket (compared to the Democratic Party in Illinois which has black and white candidates, all from Chicago or its inner suburbs).
Excuse me for finding such rhetoric to be a crock.
WHAT I SEE is that the GOP has found a Latino who is ideologically in line with the conservative base they appear to want to cater to come November (there are such Latinos, it’s not a rarity to find them), then put him into a slot where he can’t win.
For like I wrote earlier, White is a strong candidate with a well-funded campaign. I don’t think any Republican partisan seriously expects Enriquez to win come November. In fact, the cynical part of my seriously believes that if Republicans thought they had a chance to win that secretary of state post, they’d have gone out of their way to find anybody BUT Enriquez to run for it in November.
I believe that Enriquez’ role in the Republican strategy that hopes not only to regain relevance (Democrats currently hold all significant political posts in Illinois), but to win a couple of high-ranking posts.
But one of the problems they’re going to face is that the Latino population in Illinois (particularly in the Chicago area) is growing and becoming a stronger part of the electoral rolls. All of that “strength” is going over to the Democratic Party.
ALL OF THAT anti-ethnic rhetoric, particularly on the issue of immigration reform, threatens to hurt the Republicans who like to think they’re the Party of Lincoln, even though many younger GOPers are more comfortable in spirit being the Party of Reagan.
Is Enriquez meant to provide Republicans with a “brown” face (even though at first glance, he looks more white than anything else) that can be trotted out whenever GOP officials use the rhetoric that claims Democrats, by putting so much focus on Latinos and our desires, are the ones who are really trying to stir up ethnic tensions?
I suppose I’d take Enriquez a little more seriously if he had a higher-profile resume. I have no doubt he’s a serious public official, but his current government “position” is a seat on the Illinois Human Rights Commission – which investigates civil rights violations claims across the state.
It’s worthwhile work, but not exactly the resume of a state constitutional officer. Republicans would be laughing like hyenas if a Democrat with the same resume tried offering up himself as a secretary of state candidate.
THEY’D REALLY BE jumping down his throat based on the fact that everybody else even remotely associated with now-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich (who appointed Enriquez in 2005) is bracing themselves for repeated GOP attacks during the campaign season.
That presence will be needed by the Illinois Republicans, if a recent study by the America’s Voice organization has any validity. That group said that the growing Latino voter bloc has the potential to sway elections in several states because of the Republican rhetoric that has tried to turn Latinos into a political piñata to bolster the social conservative voter turnout.
In Illinois, the group cites three Congressional districts on the fringe of the Chicago area that now are held by Democrats, but where the Republican challengers are using the GOP rhetoric (“no amnesty,” “build fences along the (Mexico) border” and constant repetition of the word “illegal”) to stir up rural resentment.
The group even speculates that Rep. Mark Kirk’s bid for the U.S. Senate seat that once was held by Barack Obama himself could be hurt by the fact that he has indicated he would side with groups against immigrant interests.
BUT IF THE Republicans are to gain electoral victory, they have to find ways to mute their more ridiculous rhetoric. Otherwise all those Tea Party types are going to be surprised when they find themselves outnumbered by Latinos and other people with sympathy and sensibility with regards to newcomers to this country.
Enriquez’ presence on the ballot offers a way to try to mute some of that rhetoric. I just don’t expect to see Enriquez’ name embossed on my driver’s license any time soon.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Robert Enriquez will go into the Illinois electoral history books as the first Latino to be (http://www.ilstatesec.com/) selected as a nominee (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=150151784847&ref=search&sid=16926706.514466152..1) for a state constitutional post. Nothing more.
Republican candidates for Congress in Illinois are just as vulnerable as those in other states when it comes to (http://amvoice.3cdn.net/669bb8432480306339_h6m6i2c5r.pdf) losing the votes of the Latino voter bloc – unless Democrats get so lame that they throw that bloc away voluntarily.
This is the party line offered by Illinois Republicans about what Robert Enriquez offers (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/09/aurora-businessman-announces-bid-for-illinois-secretary-of-state.html) to the GOP ticket for the Nov. 2 elections.
he fact that one of the GOP’s nominees for a statewide political post is a Latino.They’re not lying. Robert Enriquez, who was born in Honduras and also lived for a time in Panama but has held U.S. citizenship all his life, is the nominee for Illinois secretary of state – the government post that puts its holder’s name on the driver’s license or ID card of every state resident, and also oversees a small army of state workers.
IT’S A VISIBLE post. It’s holder has significant influence over public policy. And Enriquez got that nomination by being the only GOP candidate to express interest in running for it in the Nov. 2 elections.
The reason for that is because the incumbent is Jesse White, a long-time and popular Chicago Democrat who has held the post for 12 years, is going for a fourth four-year term, and is possibly the only Democrat that GOP officials don’t view as being particularly vulnerable (no matter how much they want to believe the mood of the country is swinging over to the Republican Party).
In fact, I have read some rhetoric that implies the Illinois Republican Party is the political party of diversity because they have Enriquez on their statewide ticket (compared to the Democratic Party in Illinois which has black and white candidates, all from Chicago or its inner suburbs).
Excuse me for finding such rhetoric to be a crock.
WHAT I SEE is that the GOP has found a Latino who is ideologically in line with the conservative base they appear to want to cater to come November (there are such Latinos, it’s not a rarity to find them), then put him into a slot where he can’t win.
For like I wrote earlier, White is a strong candidate with a well-funded campaign. I don’t think any Republican partisan seriously expects Enriquez to win come November. In fact, the cynical part of my seriously believes that if Republicans thought they had a chance to win that secretary of state post, they’d have gone out of their way to find anybody BUT Enriquez to run for it in November.
I believe that Enriquez’ role in the Republican strategy that hopes not only to regain relevance (Democrats currently hold all significant political posts in Illinois), but to win a couple of high-ranking posts.
But one of the problems they’re going to face is that the Latino population in Illinois (particularly in the Chicago area) is growing and becoming a stronger part of the electoral rolls. All of that “strength” is going over to the Democratic Party.
ALL OF THAT anti-ethnic rhetoric, particularly on the issue of immigration reform, threatens to hurt the Republicans who like to think they’re the Party of Lincoln, even though many younger GOPers are more comfortable in spirit being the Party of Reagan.
Is Enriquez meant to provide Republicans with a “brown” face (even though at first glance, he looks more white than anything else) that can be trotted out whenever GOP officials use the rhetoric that claims Democrats, by putting so much focus on Latinos and our desires, are the ones who are really trying to stir up ethnic tensions?
I suppose I’d take Enriquez a little more seriously if he had a higher-profile resume. I have no doubt he’s a serious public official, but his current government “position” is a seat on the Illinois Human Rights Commission – which investigates civil rights violations claims across the state.
It’s worthwhile work, but not exactly the resume of a state constitutional officer. Republicans would be laughing like hyenas if a Democrat with the same resume tried offering up himself as a secretary of state candidate.
THEY’D REALLY BE jumping down his throat based on the fact that everybody else even remotely associated with now-impeached Gov. Rod Blagojevich (who appointed Enriquez in 2005) is bracing themselves for repeated GOP attacks during the campaign season.
That presence will be needed by the Illinois Republicans, if a recent study by the America’s Voice organization has any validity. That group said that the growing Latino voter bloc has the potential to sway elections in several states because of the Republican rhetoric that has tried to turn Latinos into a political piñata to bolster the social conservative voter turnout.
In Illinois, the group cites three Congressional districts on the fringe of the Chicago area that now are held by Democrats, but where the Republican challengers are using the GOP rhetoric (“no amnesty,” “build fences along the (Mexico) border” and constant repetition of the word “illegal”) to stir up rural resentment.
The group even speculates that Rep. Mark Kirk’s bid for the U.S. Senate seat that once was held by Barack Obama himself could be hurt by the fact that he has indicated he would side with groups against immigrant interests.
BUT IF THE Republicans are to gain electoral victory, they have to find ways to mute their more ridiculous rhetoric. Otherwise all those Tea Party types are going to be surprised when they find themselves outnumbered by Latinos and other people with sympathy and sensibility with regards to newcomers to this country.
Enriquez’ presence on the ballot offers a way to try to mute some of that rhetoric. I just don’t expect to see Enriquez’ name embossed on my driver’s license any time soon.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Robert Enriquez will go into the Illinois electoral history books as the first Latino to be (http://www.ilstatesec.com/) selected as a nominee (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=150151784847&ref=search&sid=16926706.514466152..1) for a state constitutional post. Nothing more.
Republican candidates for Congress in Illinois are just as vulnerable as those in other states when it comes to (http://amvoice.3cdn.net/669bb8432480306339_h6m6i2c5r.pdf) losing the votes of the Latino voter bloc – unless Democrats get so lame that they throw that bloc away voluntarily.
This is the party line offered by Illinois Republicans about what Robert Enriquez offers (http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2009/09/aurora-businessman-announces-bid-for-illinois-secretary-of-state.html) to the GOP ticket for the Nov. 2 elections.
Friday, February 12, 2010
How should “system” be changed to reflect Latinos?
The Latino population in this country is growing to the point where its concerns about issues can no longer be written off as an insignificant problem, if not ignored outright.
But what is the best way to force change on issues where the root of the problem is the conditions under which our society has been structured were ones put into place by an Anglo establishment based on what they thought was best for themselves?
THERE WERE A pair of moments, involving education in New Mexico and mass transit in Boston, where the underlying dispute is how to go about changing current conditions so that the growing Latino population ceases to feel like it is deliberately being excluded.
Of course, making such changes stirs up the resentment of those people who either prefer the idea of a structure that minimizes the influence of Latinos (who are rapidly approaching the 20 percent of the U.S. population mark – we’ll get a more precise figure when this year’s Census is complete), or are just so used to the current setup that they can’t envision any other way of doing things – regardless of how beneficial it would be to all of us.
What caught my attention about these two stories is that the basic structure of the issues is so ridiculously similar. The only true difference is that in New Mexico, officials are trying to use the state Legislature to bring about changes in the law that would create a more equitable situation for all.
Whereas in Boston, Latinos are turning to the courts to force the local establishment to make changes.
SPECIFICALLY, THE STATE Senate and New Mexico House of Representatives both approved similar measures this week to create a public liaison with the state’s Public Education Department. That official’s purpose would be to focus on the Latino population (just over 40 percent) in working with state education officials.
Defenders of the new emphasis on Latinos in education cite the fact that so many studies show Latinos as a whole lagging behind their Anglo counterparts when it comes to test scores, grades and graduation rates. This liaison would be in charge of figuring out what changes need to be made to bring Latinos up to par, so to speak, with the rest of the state’s students.
This measure still has a ways to go, since the two legislative chambers each created their own version of a liaison. Their plans don’t match, so legislative committees will now have to take the two bills and try to craft one version that everybody can live with. If that happens, that measure will ultimately go to the state’s governor, Bill Richardson, for consideration.
Which means the political critics who dragged out debate on this issue for countless hours and tried coming up with various amendments that would stall consideration.
ONE OF THE measures they tried to use was to change the bills so that the liaison would have a focus on “low income” students, rather than “Latino” students. On the surface, and if one is willing to overlook certain realities of our society, that sounds like it should be logical. But it isn’t.
I’ll be the first to admit that income level can have an effect on how seriously some people take education and how much of their own time they’re willing to spend on influencing their own children to be serious in their studies. Latinos from higher socio-economic backgrounds are going to have certain advantages.
But there also is the very real fact that too many people in our society are willing to make certain assumptions about people based on their ethncity (or race). When these people start complaining about the “race card” or saying they wish race didn’t have to be considered, what they often mean is they don’t want to be challenged on their own thoughts.
That is what something like this liaison position would entail. It would force the state education officials to start thinking more seriously about the fact that New Mexico is a place with a heavy Latino population and that the state’s future lies there, rather than in the descendants of those who came in the 19th Century and want to think they’re the “establishment.”
IT IS ENCOURAGING to see New Mexico state officials try to address the issue themselves. Because when things wind up in the court system, the resentment that builds up usually means that any solution gains enemies who are eager to see it fail.
That would seem to be the situation in Boston, where a complaint was filed this week with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination against the entity that operates public transportation.
Latinos and women of all ethnicities and races claim in their complaint that most of their numbers who work for the transit agency are at the lowest-level (and lowest-paying) positions, and that there are few people who don’t qualify as white men in the top-level management positions.
Transit officials told the Boston Globe newspaper that they are aware of the problem, but are having problems finding “qualified” people for these jobs.
THE STATE’S ATTORNEY general used to monitor hiring for the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority to ensure that the hiring practices came close to reflecting the reality of the types of people who live in the Boston metropolitan area.
But since that monitoring ended in 2005, employees claim that the reality has become unfavorable, and that in some cases, people who do part-time work for the authority were passed over for full-time jobs in favor of white workers.
Critics of these people argue that the only “reality” that matters is who was able to pass the tests used to determine qualifications for the jobs. Of course, people who make this argument usually are so willing to ignore the problems that are caused when a public entity has a workforce that is so out of whack with the people it is trying to serve.
Which is the same situation with those people in New Mexico who don’t want to have to focus attention on the fact that Latino students on average are not doing as well as others in the local schools.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: It must be nice to be blind to the realities around us and think that simple rhetoric (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/latino_workers.html) can resolve all (http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/politics/nm_legislature/house-passes-nm-hispanic-education-act) of life’s problems.
But what is the best way to force change on issues where the root of the problem is the conditions under which our society has been structured were ones put into place by an Anglo establishment based on what they thought was best for themselves?
THERE WERE A pair of moments, involving education in New Mexico and mass transit in Boston, where the underlying dispute is how to go about changing current conditions so that the growing Latino population ceases to feel like it is deliberately being excluded.
Of course, making such changes stirs up the resentment of those people who either prefer the idea of a structure that minimizes the influence of Latinos (who are rapidly approaching the 20 percent of the U.S. population mark – we’ll get a more precise figure when this year’s Census is complete), or are just so used to the current setup that they can’t envision any other way of doing things – regardless of how beneficial it would be to all of us.
What caught my attention about these two stories is that the basic structure of the issues is so ridiculously similar. The only true difference is that in New Mexico, officials are trying to use the state Legislature to bring about changes in the law that would create a more equitable situation for all.
Whereas in Boston, Latinos are turning to the courts to force the local establishment to make changes.
SPECIFICALLY, THE STATE Senate and New Mexico House of Representatives both approved similar measures this week to create a public liaison with the state’s Public Education Department. That official’s purpose would be to focus on the Latino population (just over 40 percent) in working with state education officials.
Defenders of the new emphasis on Latinos in education cite the fact that so many studies show Latinos as a whole lagging behind their Anglo counterparts when it comes to test scores, grades and graduation rates. This liaison would be in charge of figuring out what changes need to be made to bring Latinos up to par, so to speak, with the rest of the state’s students.
This measure still has a ways to go, since the two legislative chambers each created their own version of a liaison. Their plans don’t match, so legislative committees will now have to take the two bills and try to craft one version that everybody can live with. If that happens, that measure will ultimately go to the state’s governor, Bill Richardson, for consideration.
Which means the political critics who dragged out debate on this issue for countless hours and tried coming up with various amendments that would stall consideration.
ONE OF THE measures they tried to use was to change the bills so that the liaison would have a focus on “low income” students, rather than “Latino” students. On the surface, and if one is willing to overlook certain realities of our society, that sounds like it should be logical. But it isn’t.
I’ll be the first to admit that income level can have an effect on how seriously some people take education and how much of their own time they’re willing to spend on influencing their own children to be serious in their studies. Latinos from higher socio-economic backgrounds are going to have certain advantages.
But there also is the very real fact that too many people in our society are willing to make certain assumptions about people based on their ethncity (or race). When these people start complaining about the “race card” or saying they wish race didn’t have to be considered, what they often mean is they don’t want to be challenged on their own thoughts.
That is what something like this liaison position would entail. It would force the state education officials to start thinking more seriously about the fact that New Mexico is a place with a heavy Latino population and that the state’s future lies there, rather than in the descendants of those who came in the 19th Century and want to think they’re the “establishment.”
IT IS ENCOURAGING to see New Mexico state officials try to address the issue themselves. Because when things wind up in the court system, the resentment that builds up usually means that any solution gains enemies who are eager to see it fail.
That would seem to be the situation in Boston, where a complaint was filed this week with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination against the entity that operates public transportation.
Latinos and women of all ethnicities and races claim in their complaint that most of their numbers who work for the transit agency are at the lowest-level (and lowest-paying) positions, and that there are few people who don’t qualify as white men in the top-level management positions.
Transit officials told the Boston Globe newspaper that they are aware of the problem, but are having problems finding “qualified” people for these jobs.
THE STATE’S ATTORNEY general used to monitor hiring for the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority to ensure that the hiring practices came close to reflecting the reality of the types of people who live in the Boston metropolitan area.
But since that monitoring ended in 2005, employees claim that the reality has become unfavorable, and that in some cases, people who do part-time work for the authority were passed over for full-time jobs in favor of white workers.
Critics of these people argue that the only “reality” that matters is who was able to pass the tests used to determine qualifications for the jobs. Of course, people who make this argument usually are so willing to ignore the problems that are caused when a public entity has a workforce that is so out of whack with the people it is trying to serve.
Which is the same situation with those people in New Mexico who don’t want to have to focus attention on the fact that Latino students on average are not doing as well as others in the local schools.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: It must be nice to be blind to the realities around us and think that simple rhetoric (http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/02/latino_workers.html) can resolve all (http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/politics/nm_legislature/house-passes-nm-hispanic-education-act) of life’s problems.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Is it really a surprise that Latinos watched the Super Bowl?
I didn’t watch the Super Bowl on Sunday, but that apparently places me within a “minority” of sorts.
For in addition to drawing more viewers than the final first-run episode of M*A*S*H, this year’s Super Bowl matchup also is believed to have had more Latinos watching than ever before.
FOR THE RECORD, it is estimated (no one will ever know for sure) that 8.28 million Latinos had their television sets tuned to CBS affiliates to watch New Orleans beat Indianapolis – more than any other English-language program ever.
The previous record for Latino viewers watching English-language programs was last year’s Super Bowl – which had 7.84 million people with ethnic origins in Latin America amongst its viewers.
Personally, I don’t think much of the significance of the Super Bowl passing up the finale of the highlight (although not the end) of Alan Alda’s acting career, since I think a sporting event broadcast is such a different type of program from a situation comedy episode that the numbers are not really comparable.
But it doesn’t shock me to learn that Latinos are a part of that large audience. It all comes down to the fact that Latinos are assimilating into the mainstream of U.S. society – regardless of how much the nativists want to believe we’re too different to fit in with this country.
SO THE FACT that a record overall audience would also include so many Latinos that we also set a record for television viewing ought to be regarded somewhere along the line of, “So what?!?”
After all, the previous record for Latino viewing coincided with the previous record for overall viewing of a Super Bowl broadcast.
The idea that Latinos got a kick out of spending a Sunday parking our carcasses in front of a television (even though we didn’t get the “ideal” matchup of Tony Romo and Mark Sanchez as Super Bowl quarterbacks http://www.mysanantonio.com/sacultura/conexion/Romo-Sanchez_matchup_in_Super_Bowl_would_have_inspired_Hispanic_sports_fans.html) shouldn’t be surprising.
Chances are very good that this “Latino record” will last as long as one year, or until the National Football League stages its next Super Bowl in Arlington, Texas, and proclaims it to be the event that the whole world watches – even though I seriously question if anyone outside the United States truly cares.
PART OF IT ties into the fact that the NFL has made serious efforts in recent years to bolster its image among Latino viewers, realizing that we are a growing segment of the population with money to spend that they would like to get their share of.
They guesstimate that 1.1 million Latinos each week watch NFL games during the regular season. That’s a lot of chips and guacamole dip being consumed – except that our guacamole has actual flavor to it and isn’t as pasty as that version often offered at generic Super Bowl parties.
Still, there were some of us who didn’t watch. My Sunday night was a combination of writing and following the last night of the Caribbean Series (won by the Dominican Republic’s team, while my favored Mexico team had to settle for a highlight of an extra-inning game winning hit by former U.S. major leaguer Vinny Castilla, while putting together an overall record of 2-4).
I just have one final thought.
THE IMAGE BEING painted amongst the public is of many Latinos watching the Super Bowl. I didn’t. So if I’m part of the minority (non-viewers) of a minority (Latinos in general), is that like a double-negative?
A minority of a minority is really a majority – as in people who had better things to do than babble on about “who dat?” and watch Peyton Manning blow a ballgame for Indianapolis?
-30-
For in addition to drawing more viewers than the final first-run episode of M*A*S*H, this year’s Super Bowl matchup also is believed to have had more Latinos watching than ever before.
FOR THE RECORD, it is estimated (no one will ever know for sure) that 8.28 million Latinos had their television sets tuned to CBS affiliates to watch New Orleans beat Indianapolis – more than any other English-language program ever.
The previous record for Latino viewers watching English-language programs was last year’s Super Bowl – which had 7.84 million people with ethnic origins in Latin America amongst its viewers.
Personally, I don’t think much of the significance of the Super Bowl passing up the finale of the highlight (although not the end) of Alan Alda’s acting career, since I think a sporting event broadcast is such a different type of program from a situation comedy episode that the numbers are not really comparable.
But it doesn’t shock me to learn that Latinos are a part of that large audience. It all comes down to the fact that Latinos are assimilating into the mainstream of U.S. society – regardless of how much the nativists want to believe we’re too different to fit in with this country.
SO THE FACT that a record overall audience would also include so many Latinos that we also set a record for television viewing ought to be regarded somewhere along the line of, “So what?!?”
After all, the previous record for Latino viewing coincided with the previous record for overall viewing of a Super Bowl broadcast.
The idea that Latinos got a kick out of spending a Sunday parking our carcasses in front of a television (even though we didn’t get the “ideal” matchup of Tony Romo and Mark Sanchez as Super Bowl quarterbacks http://www.mysanantonio.com/sacultura/conexion/Romo-Sanchez_matchup_in_Super_Bowl_would_have_inspired_Hispanic_sports_fans.html) shouldn’t be surprising.
Chances are very good that this “Latino record” will last as long as one year, or until the National Football League stages its next Super Bowl in Arlington, Texas, and proclaims it to be the event that the whole world watches – even though I seriously question if anyone outside the United States truly cares.
PART OF IT ties into the fact that the NFL has made serious efforts in recent years to bolster its image among Latino viewers, realizing that we are a growing segment of the population with money to spend that they would like to get their share of.
They guesstimate that 1.1 million Latinos each week watch NFL games during the regular season. That’s a lot of chips and guacamole dip being consumed – except that our guacamole has actual flavor to it and isn’t as pasty as that version often offered at generic Super Bowl parties.
Still, there were some of us who didn’t watch. My Sunday night was a combination of writing and following the last night of the Caribbean Series (won by the Dominican Republic’s team, while my favored Mexico team had to settle for a highlight of an extra-inning game winning hit by former U.S. major leaguer Vinny Castilla, while putting together an overall record of 2-4).
I just have one final thought.
THE IMAGE BEING painted amongst the public is of many Latinos watching the Super Bowl. I didn’t. So if I’m part of the minority (non-viewers) of a minority (Latinos in general), is that like a double-negative?
A minority of a minority is really a majority – as in people who had better things to do than babble on about “who dat?” and watch Peyton Manning blow a ballgame for Indianapolis?
-30-
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
E-mail harassment not at all unusual
“Vincent Johnson” sounds innocuous, like just another schnook. Yet federal prosecutors contend he’s the “devilfish.” The devilfish579, to be exact.
Johnson is a man who last week learned he was indicted by a federal grand jury because of the e-mails he would send out under the web address of devilfish579@aol.com. By the tone of his e-mailed prose, he is a nativist who likes to express himself directly to the people he perceives as “the enemy.”
HIS RECIPIENTS USUALLY consisted of activist groups and others willing to work on behalf of the growing Latino population in the United States. But because the tone of his language used in these e-mails became so hostile and threatening, the feds investigated him.
And now, he faces numerous charges of interfering with the exercise of the groups’ civil rights, transmitting threatening messages in interstate commerce and cyberstalking. Prosecutors said earlier this year that five Latino-oriented groups were the recipients of his hostile messages between November 2006 and February 2009.
I’m sure Johnson himself thinks he did nothing more than express himself, which he has a right to do under the personal freedoms that we accord people in this country – even when their expressions are of opinions that are knuckleheaded. In short, the American Way says we have the right to be wrong, if we so choose.
But the feds say he crossed the line into a territory where, if convicted of the criminal charges now pending against him, he could face up to 10 years in prison.
ADMITTEDLY, IT IS a fine line that differentiates between expressing a ridiculous opinion and engaging in ridiculous actions. In messages that federal officials made public as part of their announcement of Johnson’s indictment, he writes of purchasing ammunition to deal with “pro-illegal alien groups” and says that the groups belong on “hit lists” just “like any illegal alien.”
While I am not aware of any weapons being found in his possession, my guess would be that the federal prosecutors believed he was in a position to act upon his hostile ideas, and not just express them in e-mails.
I find this case interesting because I have been the target of similar e-mails myself, although to the best of my knowledge, devilfish579 never sent me anything. My guess is that his swimming through the seas of material the comprise the Internet never caused him to stumble across The South Chicagoan.
For I suspect had he ever read this site, he would have found much to disagree with. I know his ideological counterparts have, although none have ever sent me anything that would cause me to feel the need to contact law enforcement authorities.
THE ONE THING all these people have (aside from a nitwit ideological hangup that causes them to think this country should remain in a mindset of the early 19th century) is that they use anonymity. I have never received a critical comment where the “author” had the guts to sign his/her name to their thoughts.
Could it be that on a certain level, even they’re ashamed of what they think?
Occasionally, these people come up with the internet equivalent of “pen” names for themselves, which I suppose has a certain literary merit to it. Although I personally have always thought that if I write something, I want my name on it. If it is so wretched that I couldn’t put my name to it, then perhaps it isn’t worth writing to begin with.
It is this very anonymity that, in my mind, causes me to discredit just about anything said in such messages, which usually are either just a couple of hostile words or an overbloated essay that rambles far from the topic at hand and always manages to see life from the perspective of, “No one not like me belongs in this country!”
I PROBABLY SHOULD have spelled a word or two wrong for authenticity sake. But you get the idea. His ideas aren’t all that different from the nonsense rhetoric used by the activists who are desperately trying to kill off anything resembling true immigration reform from being considered this year (or any year) by Congress.
Personally, I feel a touch of pity for Johnson, who probably is going to be broken financially by the legal costs of defending himself against the U.S. government. Even if he can somehow beat the charges and get an acquittal, this incident will hound him for the rest of his life.
And if he is convicted, he faces the possibility of prison time, which will not be a pleasant experience.
It is a shame it had to come to this, all because Johnson can’t accept the realities of the 21st Century in our country.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Vincent Johnson now faces criminal charges in federal court because of his (http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/politics/2010/2/9/vincent_johnson_devilfish579_indicted_for_threats.htm) e-mail habits.
The Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials put this e-mail message they received from devilfish 579 (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=266573527292) on their Facebook page so that it could be available for public consumption. What a shock that the devilfish has his hangups about President Barack Obama.
Johnson is a man who last week learned he was indicted by a federal grand jury because of the e-mails he would send out under the web address of devilfish579@aol.com. By the tone of his e-mailed prose, he is a nativist who likes to express himself directly to the people he perceives as “the enemy.”
HIS RECIPIENTS USUALLY consisted of activist groups and others willing to work on behalf of the growing Latino population in the United States. But because the tone of his language used in these e-mails became so hostile and threatening, the feds investigated him.
And now, he faces numerous charges of interfering with the exercise of the groups’ civil rights, transmitting threatening messages in interstate commerce and cyberstalking. Prosecutors said earlier this year that five Latino-oriented groups were the recipients of his hostile messages between November 2006 and February 2009.
I’m sure Johnson himself thinks he did nothing more than express himself, which he has a right to do under the personal freedoms that we accord people in this country – even when their expressions are of opinions that are knuckleheaded. In short, the American Way says we have the right to be wrong, if we so choose.
But the feds say he crossed the line into a territory where, if convicted of the criminal charges now pending against him, he could face up to 10 years in prison.
ADMITTEDLY, IT IS a fine line that differentiates between expressing a ridiculous opinion and engaging in ridiculous actions. In messages that federal officials made public as part of their announcement of Johnson’s indictment, he writes of purchasing ammunition to deal with “pro-illegal alien groups” and says that the groups belong on “hit lists” just “like any illegal alien.”
While I am not aware of any weapons being found in his possession, my guess would be that the federal prosecutors believed he was in a position to act upon his hostile ideas, and not just express them in e-mails.
I find this case interesting because I have been the target of similar e-mails myself, although to the best of my knowledge, devilfish579 never sent me anything. My guess is that his swimming through the seas of material the comprise the Internet never caused him to stumble across The South Chicagoan.
For I suspect had he ever read this site, he would have found much to disagree with. I know his ideological counterparts have, although none have ever sent me anything that would cause me to feel the need to contact law enforcement authorities.
THE ONE THING all these people have (aside from a nitwit ideological hangup that causes them to think this country should remain in a mindset of the early 19th century) is that they use anonymity. I have never received a critical comment where the “author” had the guts to sign his/her name to their thoughts.
Could it be that on a certain level, even they’re ashamed of what they think?
Occasionally, these people come up with the internet equivalent of “pen” names for themselves, which I suppose has a certain literary merit to it. Although I personally have always thought that if I write something, I want my name on it. If it is so wretched that I couldn’t put my name to it, then perhaps it isn’t worth writing to begin with.
It is this very anonymity that, in my mind, causes me to discredit just about anything said in such messages, which usually are either just a couple of hostile words or an overbloated essay that rambles far from the topic at hand and always manages to see life from the perspective of, “No one not like me belongs in this country!”
I PROBABLY SHOULD have spelled a word or two wrong for authenticity sake. But you get the idea. His ideas aren’t all that different from the nonsense rhetoric used by the activists who are desperately trying to kill off anything resembling true immigration reform from being considered this year (or any year) by Congress.
Personally, I feel a touch of pity for Johnson, who probably is going to be broken financially by the legal costs of defending himself against the U.S. government. Even if he can somehow beat the charges and get an acquittal, this incident will hound him for the rest of his life.
And if he is convicted, he faces the possibility of prison time, which will not be a pleasant experience.
It is a shame it had to come to this, all because Johnson can’t accept the realities of the 21st Century in our country.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Vincent Johnson now faces criminal charges in federal court because of his (http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/politics/2010/2/9/vincent_johnson_devilfish579_indicted_for_threats.htm) e-mail habits.
The Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials put this e-mail message they received from devilfish 579 (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=266573527292) on their Facebook page so that it could be available for public consumption. What a shock that the devilfish has his hangups about President Barack Obama.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Who represents the bigger political backlash?
The “Tea Party” types (really just the conservative cranks who think that “real America” means only people just like themselves) had 
themselves a convention this past weekend, and so much of the attention went to the fact that keynote speaker Sarah Palin had notes scrawled on her palm (rather than use a teleprompter).
Admittedly, these people are the base of support the former Alaska governor is going to need to have solidly on her side if she is ever to become a political figure of any significance (rather than just the political babe with a nice figure).
BUT I CAN’T help but think the interesting part of that convention taking place in Nashville, Tenn., came a few day earlier when another former political person opened his mouth and let fly with his rhetoric.
Tom Tancredo, the one-time congressman from Colorado, was saying he was glad to see the ticket of McCain/Palin go down to defeat in ’08. Not because of anything involving Palin, but because his vision of a president is one who solidly backs everything he wants and who crushes anything his opponents want to contribute.
In short, “compromise” is a dirty word.
Specifically, McCain let loose with rhetoric that shouldn’t have been the least bit surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. The hard-core conservative element of the Republican Party was never trusting of McCain, whom they saw as willing to work with other groups to try to reach compromise.
WHAT INTERESTED ME was the one example Tancredo cited of what he thinks would have been “compromise,” and naturally, it went to the heart of immigration.
He says he believes that McCain would have cut some sort of deal with Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who late last year introduced his own immigration reform measure – one meant to help people already living in this country without proper papers to get those documents so they can come out of the shadows of our society.
Personally, I think anything that gets those people exposed to “sunlight” in our society is a good thing for all.
But to Tancredo, he wants to shove it back into the shadows, before trying to bolster the number of deportations – which seems to be the extent to which he thinks there is a need for “reform” of the federal immigration laws.
NOW I REALIZE that the loudmouthed ex-representative is at the extreme of the issue. Most people in this country have too much sense to seriously believe this kind of rhetoric.
But the problem has become one where that extreme has been given the extra-loud bullhorn so that their rants wind up dominating the public discussion. Too many politicians hear those diatribes and figure they are better off ignoring the issue.
Of course, the nativists would rather have some action directed at tougher “enforcement.” But I think many political people are coming around to the sense that the growing Latino population in this country is taking this issue seriously because we realize that many nativists don’t want to have to distinguish between Latinos born in the U.S. and people born in Latin American countries.
Which is why I believe that if our political people really think they can continue to brush this issue off, it is going to get ugly. Will the Latino electoral backlash wind up whipping politicos even harsher than the lash expected from the “right” for taking action?
I THINK IT could.
Tancredo offered up some nonsense talk of how McCain would have given Gutierrez an Oval Office bill signing for his measure, which would have been pushed through as a priority during the first year.
Yet let’s not forget that the McCain campaign of ’08 lost any chance of being perceived as sympathetic to Latinos when the candidate himself made comments making it clear he would not pursue the issue, and in fact desired the support of the nativists more than he did the growing Latino vote.
He made his choice, and it cost him dearly – I honestly believe most of that two-thirds Latino majority that voted “for” -Barack Obama were really voting against McCain, who wound up serving as a surrogate for Republicans like Tancredo.
FOR EVERY PERSON who wants to accept the rants of Tancredo and his followers, I think they need to be more aware of the growing sentiment among Latinos that the time for action is overdue, and that many are of the belief that something must happen this year – even though Obama himself has never committed himself to anything specific and in recent weeks has offered up even less.
If anything, that could be the practical effect of a proposed March 21 rally on Capitol Hill where activists from across the nation are expected to show up in Washington to express their desire that action begin now on immigration reform.
Perhaps the sight of all those people who haven’t forgotten that their families come from somewhere else and that the great advantage of this country is that it can (and will) take in anyone is going to be what it requires in order to make people realize just how ridiculous the rants of people like Tancredo truly are.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Tom Tancredo’s talk of “revolution” is really just a desire to return things to a past (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/02/05/tom-tancredo-to-tea-partiers-thank-god-john-mccain-lost/) that was far from ideal for many people.
themselves a convention this past weekend, and so much of the attention went to the fact that keynote speaker Sarah Palin had notes scrawled on her palm (rather than use a teleprompter).Admittedly, these people are the base of support the former Alaska governor is going to need to have solidly on her side if she is ever to become a political figure of any significance (rather than just the political babe with a nice figure).
BUT I CAN’T help but think the interesting part of that convention taking place in Nashville, Tenn., came a few day earlier when another former political person opened his mouth and let fly with his rhetoric.
Tom Tancredo, the one-time congressman from Colorado, was saying he was glad to see the ticket of McCain/Palin go down to defeat in ’08. Not because of anything involving Palin, but because his vision of a president is one who solidly backs everything he wants and who crushes anything his opponents want to contribute.
In short, “compromise” is a dirty word.
Specifically, McCain let loose with rhetoric that shouldn’t have been the least bit surprising to anyone who has been paying attention. The hard-core conservative element of the Republican Party was never trusting of McCain, whom they saw as willing to work with other groups to try to reach compromise.
WHAT INTERESTED ME was the one example Tancredo cited of what he thinks would have been “compromise,” and naturally, it went to the heart of immigration.
He says he believes that McCain would have cut some sort of deal with Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., who late last year introduced his own immigration reform measure – one meant to help people already living in this country without proper papers to get those documents so they can come out of the shadows of our society.
Personally, I think anything that gets those people exposed to “sunlight” in our society is a good thing for all.
But to Tancredo, he wants to shove it back into the shadows, before trying to bolster the number of deportations – which seems to be the extent to which he thinks there is a need for “reform” of the federal immigration laws.
NOW I REALIZE that the loudmouthed ex-representative is at the extreme of the issue. Most people in this country have too much sense to seriously believe this kind of rhetoric.
But the problem has become one where that extreme has been given the extra-loud bullhorn so that their rants wind up dominating the public discussion. Too many politicians hear those diatribes and figure they are better off ignoring the issue.
Of course, the nativists would rather have some action directed at tougher “enforcement.” But I think many political people are coming around to the sense that the growing Latino population in this country is taking this issue seriously because we realize that many nativists don’t want to have to distinguish between Latinos born in the U.S. and people born in Latin American countries.
Which is why I believe that if our political people really think they can continue to brush this issue off, it is going to get ugly. Will the Latino electoral backlash wind up whipping politicos even harsher than the lash expected from the “right” for taking action?
I THINK IT could.
Tancredo offered up some nonsense talk of how McCain would have given Gutierrez an Oval Office bill signing for his measure, which would have been pushed through as a priority during the first year.
Yet let’s not forget that the McCain campaign of ’08 lost any chance of being perceived as sympathetic to Latinos when the candidate himself made comments making it clear he would not pursue the issue, and in fact desired the support of the nativists more than he did the growing Latino vote.
He made his choice, and it cost him dearly – I honestly believe most of that two-thirds Latino majority that voted “for” -Barack Obama were really voting against McCain, who wound up serving as a surrogate for Republicans like Tancredo.
FOR EVERY PERSON who wants to accept the rants of Tancredo and his followers, I think they need to be more aware of the growing sentiment among Latinos that the time for action is overdue, and that many are of the belief that something must happen this year – even though Obama himself has never committed himself to anything specific and in recent weeks has offered up even less.
If anything, that could be the practical effect of a proposed March 21 rally on Capitol Hill where activists from across the nation are expected to show up in Washington to express their desire that action begin now on immigration reform.
Perhaps the sight of all those people who haven’t forgotten that their families come from somewhere else and that the great advantage of this country is that it can (and will) take in anyone is going to be what it requires in order to make people realize just how ridiculous the rants of people like Tancredo truly are.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Tom Tancredo’s talk of “revolution” is really just a desire to return things to a past (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/02/05/tom-tancredo-to-tea-partiers-thank-god-john-mccain-lost/) that was far from ideal for many people.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Someday, these stories will be a laughing matter
Someday, probably some five decades or so from now, these stories of people being harassed because of language are going to be funny.
We’re going to look back on our current era and wonder how we could ever have been so backward as to see a threat from people who are capable of speaking the Spanish language. They will be sad, pathetic little stories that we chuckle at because of how far we come.
I HAVE EVERY bit of confidence that the outcome I have stated will come about. Someday.
But for now, I can’t help but be disgusted at the latest saga of someone who hears the Spanish language and perceives a “threat” to what they want to believe is the “American Way” of life – although their definition is usually narrow and exclusive of so many people who aren’t just like them that I’d call it more “un-American.”
The latest incident involves a school district in Charlotte, N.C. In the Carolinas, the percentage of growth of the Latino population has shot up significantly. But what that really means is that it wasn’t all that long ago there weren’t Latino populations of any significance in those southern states. Now, there are.
That means we’re going through growing pains, as people are going to have to get used to the idea of local residents who don’t speak in a drawl (or are we destined to someday get people who learn Southern-style English, which means their accent will be a truly twisted combination of drawl and Español?
IT TURNS OUT that Ana Ligia Mateo, a former secretary for Devonshire Elementary School in the Charlotte-based school district, has filed a lawsuit against the school officials in the U.S. District Court for that part of the coutnry.
Reports indicate that she was hired in 2006 because of her Spanish-language skills to be a secretary. Her job included providing translation for school officials when needed, in addition to performing other clerical tasks for the administration.
Considering that the school district in question has about one of every six of its students as Latino, that probably makes some sense.
But a new principal came along in 2008, one who it seems did not value the need for bilingual employees. Published reports say that principal warned the secretary on several occasions to quit speaking Spanish, even in cases where parents whose English skills were limited tried to do business with the principal but could not because neither side could comprehend the other.
MATEO ULTIMATELY REFUSED to sign an agreement that she not speak Spanish, and she lost her job in September of 2008. She filed a lawsuit in the local courts, while an Equal Opportunity Employment Commission complaint attempted to resolve the situation.
The only thing that appears to have come out of that complaint was a recommendation that the federal court system, rather than the local courts in Charlotte, were the appropriate place for her lawsuit to be filed.
So now, we get to go through the potential of years of litigation, all because someone cannot see the need to be flexible and adapt school policies with changes in the district.
In fact, what makes this case so pathetic is that it seems that the school district, in originally hiring Mateo in part because of her bilingual abilities, did realize the need to change. They were trying to accommodate the daily realities of their community, which is that there were significant numbers of people who were not completely fluent in English, and that having someone who could help translate was much better than making some ideological “statement” of demanding that those people bolster their English skills.
THEY WILL, IN due time.
But trying to hold that as an issue against them during their time of adaptation is truly a backward step. That is what this particular principal’s actions (which probably were centered less on any true bigotry, and were more about an unwillingness to have to deal with more issues than necessary, including the very real changes in that particular school district’s ethnic demographics).
That, in my opinion, is laziness on the job. I know if I had ever tried to work at a job and think I could just ignore certain aspects of it, I likely would have been fired. I certainly wouldn’t have been allowed to do the “firing” in order to get rid of anything that I didn’t want to address.
That is what seems to have happened here.
I DON’T KNOW how this case will turn out. For all I know, Mateo may find her case being assigned to one of those federal judges who wants to believe that the U.S. Constitution prevents him/her from doing much of anything.
It is one of those stories where, like I wrote earlier, five decades from now, we’re going to sit back and wonder how anyone could have ever thought this principal’s judgment was acceptable. Of that, I’m absolutely sure.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Even more so than the teacher, I sympathize with the 7-year-old boy whose incident (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/02/07/School-secretary-axed-for-speaking-Spanish/UPI-15611265571273/) provoked the question of whether it was appropriate for the secretary to help a parent whose English was limited.
We’re going to look back on our current era and wonder how we could ever have been so backward as to see a threat from people who are capable of speaking the Spanish language. They will be sad, pathetic little stories that we chuckle at because of how far we come.
I HAVE EVERY bit of confidence that the outcome I have stated will come about. Someday.
But for now, I can’t help but be disgusted at the latest saga of someone who hears the Spanish language and perceives a “threat” to what they want to believe is the “American Way” of life – although their definition is usually narrow and exclusive of so many people who aren’t just like them that I’d call it more “un-American.”
The latest incident involves a school district in Charlotte, N.C. In the Carolinas, the percentage of growth of the Latino population has shot up significantly. But what that really means is that it wasn’t all that long ago there weren’t Latino populations of any significance in those southern states. Now, there are.
That means we’re going through growing pains, as people are going to have to get used to the idea of local residents who don’t speak in a drawl (or are we destined to someday get people who learn Southern-style English, which means their accent will be a truly twisted combination of drawl and Español?
IT TURNS OUT that Ana Ligia Mateo, a former secretary for Devonshire Elementary School in the Charlotte-based school district, has filed a lawsuit against the school officials in the U.S. District Court for that part of the coutnry.
Reports indicate that she was hired in 2006 because of her Spanish-language skills to be a secretary. Her job included providing translation for school officials when needed, in addition to performing other clerical tasks for the administration.
Considering that the school district in question has about one of every six of its students as Latino, that probably makes some sense.
But a new principal came along in 2008, one who it seems did not value the need for bilingual employees. Published reports say that principal warned the secretary on several occasions to quit speaking Spanish, even in cases where parents whose English skills were limited tried to do business with the principal but could not because neither side could comprehend the other.
MATEO ULTIMATELY REFUSED to sign an agreement that she not speak Spanish, and she lost her job in September of 2008. She filed a lawsuit in the local courts, while an Equal Opportunity Employment Commission complaint attempted to resolve the situation.
The only thing that appears to have come out of that complaint was a recommendation that the federal court system, rather than the local courts in Charlotte, were the appropriate place for her lawsuit to be filed.
So now, we get to go through the potential of years of litigation, all because someone cannot see the need to be flexible and adapt school policies with changes in the district.
In fact, what makes this case so pathetic is that it seems that the school district, in originally hiring Mateo in part because of her bilingual abilities, did realize the need to change. They were trying to accommodate the daily realities of their community, which is that there were significant numbers of people who were not completely fluent in English, and that having someone who could help translate was much better than making some ideological “statement” of demanding that those people bolster their English skills.
THEY WILL, IN due time.
But trying to hold that as an issue against them during their time of adaptation is truly a backward step. That is what this particular principal’s actions (which probably were centered less on any true bigotry, and were more about an unwillingness to have to deal with more issues than necessary, including the very real changes in that particular school district’s ethnic demographics).
That, in my opinion, is laziness on the job. I know if I had ever tried to work at a job and think I could just ignore certain aspects of it, I likely would have been fired. I certainly wouldn’t have been allowed to do the “firing” in order to get rid of anything that I didn’t want to address.
That is what seems to have happened here.
I DON’T KNOW how this case will turn out. For all I know, Mateo may find her case being assigned to one of those federal judges who wants to believe that the U.S. Constitution prevents him/her from doing much of anything.
It is one of those stories where, like I wrote earlier, five decades from now, we’re going to sit back and wonder how anyone could have ever thought this principal’s judgment was acceptable. Of that, I’m absolutely sure.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTE: Even more so than the teacher, I sympathize with the 7-year-old boy whose incident (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/02/07/School-secretary-axed-for-speaking-Spanish/UPI-15611265571273/) provoked the question of whether it was appropriate for the secretary to help a parent whose English was limited.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)